INFORMATION TO USERS

This manuscript has been npmduced fmm the microfilm master. UMI films the

text directly from the original or copy submitted. fhus, soma thesis and

dissertation copies are in typemiter face. Mile othen may ôe from any type of

amputer pn'nter.

The quality of this npioducti*on is dependent upon the qurlity of the copy

submitted. Broken or indistinct print, cokred or poor quality illustraüons and

photographs, print bkedthrough, substandard margins, and improper alignment

can advenely affect reproduction.

In the unlikely evmt that the author did not send UMI a complet8 manuscript and

there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized copyright

material had tn be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.

Ovenùe materials (e.g., maps, dram'ngs, charts) are nproduced by secüoning

the original, beginning at the upper lefthand corner and conünuing from left to

right in equal sections with small overîaps.

Photographs indudad in the original manusuipt have been reproduced

xerographically in this copy. Higher quality 6' x W bladr and white photogmphic

prints are avaiîaMe for any photographs or illustrations appearing in this copy for

an additional charge. Contact UMI directly to order.

Bell & Howell Information and Leaming 300 NOM Zaeb Rad, Ann Arbor, MI 48106-1346 USA

CREEK WATER QUALITY IMPACTS: IRRIGATION TAILWATERS AND SEWAGE

DISCHARGES

Vikram Shrivastava

A thesis submitted to the Faculty of Graduate Studies and Research,

in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science

Department of Agricultural and Biosystems Engineering Macdonald Campus of McGill University St. Annede-Bellevue, Quebec, Canada

March 1998

O Vikram Shrivastava, 1998

National Library ($1 of Canada Bibliothéque nationale du Canada

Acquisitions and Acquisitions et Bibliographie Services services bibliographiques

395 Wellington Sbeet 395, nie Wellington OttawaON K1AON4 Ottawû ON K1A ON4 Canada Canada

The author has granted a non- exclusive licence allowing the National Library of Canada to reproduce, loan, distribute or sel1 copies of this thesis in microform, paper or electronic formats.

The author retains ownership of the copyright in this thesis. Neither the thesis nor substantial extracts fiom it may be printed or otherwise reproduced without the author's permission.

L'auteur a accordé une licence non exclusive permettant a la Bibliothèque nationale du Canada de reproduire, prêter, distribuer ou vendre des copies de cette thèse sous la fonne de rnicrofiche/film, de reproduction su. papier ou sur format électronique.

L'auteur conserve la propriété du droit d'auteur qui protège cette thèse. Ni la thèse ni des extraits substantiels de celle-ci ne doivent Gtre imprimés ou autrement reproduits sans son autorisation.

ABSTRACT

The objective of this study was to detemine the impacts of imgation tailwater

and sewage lagoon discharge on the water quality of Crowfoot Creek, Alberta,

Canada. The rnonitored irrigation tailwater accounted for more than 55% of the

water flow in the basin. With the exception of the early part of the 1997 irrigation

season the irrigation tailwater only impacted the phosphate and total phosphorus

levels in the creek. High values for ail parameters were recorded in the early part

of the 1997 irrigation season, due to imgation source water quality or deposition of

contaminants into the imgation canals during the 1997 spring ninoff. The impact of

the sewage lagoon effluent on the water quality of the creek was minimal to

insignificant. The primary sources of contamination in the watershed are thought

to be direct cattle access to the creek. soi1 erosion and surface runofl.

RESUME

Le but de cette étude fut de déterminer l'impact de I'eau d'irrigation

surabondante et des rejets de bassin de traitement d'effluents urbains sur la qualité

de I'eau dans le bassin du ruisseau Crowfoot, en Alberta, Canada. Les eaux

d'irrigation surabondantes furent responsables pour plus de 55% du débit du

bassin. A l'exception du début de la saison d'irrigation en 1997, les eaux d'irrigation

surabondantes n'eurent d'impacte que sur la teneur en phosphates et le phosphore

total de I'eau du ruisseau. Au début de la saison d'irrigation de 1997 la contribution,

aux niveaux élevés des divers parambtres de qualité de I'eau du ruisseau, de I'eau

d'irrigation surabondante et des depots de contaminants dans les canaux d'irrigation

lors de l'écoulement printanier, fut noté. Cimpacte des rejets du bassin de

traitement sur la qualité de I'eau du ruisseau fut de minimale à insignifiante. Les

principales sources de contamination dans le bassin versant semblent être l'accès

direct du bétail au ruisseau, l'érosion du sol et le ruisselement.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to first and foremost thank my advisor, Dr. Robert Bonnell, for his

support and encouragement. In particular, I appreciated Dr. Bonnell for pushing me

to expand my limits while giving me enough freedom to grow in directions where I

wanted to grow. Despite being in Alberta for much of my masters I appreciated Dr.

Bonnell for adjusting to being a remote advisor.

I would also like to thank Alberta Agriculture, Food and Rural Development's

Irrigation Branch for providing me with a project on which to focus my research.

Specifically I would like to thank Brent Paterson, Gary Buckland, Graeme Greenlee,

Dennis Roll. Keith Adamson, Gerald Ontkean. Lawrence Schinkel and James Cuff.

I appreciated Keith Adamson's assistance in providing substantial information on

the basin and faming in Alberta. As this was a water quality study, I would like to

acknowledge the contribution of the AAFRD Lethbridge laboratory staff under the

leadership of Stan Smetana for the analysis of water samples. In addition, I would

like to thank the personnel at AAFRDts Strathmore and Lethbridge ofiices for their

help in making me a part of the Crowfoot team.

Throughout my masters studies whether in Alberta or on the Macdonald

campus the department's graduate secretary and departmental secretaries ensured

that I met McGill requirements. Along with this they kept me informed on what was

happening in the department. Therefore, I would like to thank Susan Gregus,

Sandra Nagy and Maria Gabriel. Along with them I thank various people in the

department for their encouragement and support over the last two yean. Finally, I would like to thank my parents for inspiring and motivating me.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Abstract i

Resume ii

Acknowledgements iii

Abbreviations x

1 .O Introduction 1.1 Objectives 1.2 Scope

2.0 Background 3 2.1 Larsen East Study - Part of the Crowfoot Creek Project 3 2.2 Study Area 3 2.3 Literature Review 7

2.3.1 Nitrogen 7 2.3.1.1 Ammonia 7 2.3.1.2 Nitrate 8 2.3.1.3 Nitrite 9 2.3.1.4 Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen 10

2.3.2 Phosphorus 10 2.3.3 Total Dissolved Solids 12 2.3.4 Total Suspended Solids 12 2.3.5 Fecal Coliforrn 13 2.3.6 Impact of Irrigation on Creek Water Quality 15

2.3.6.1 Irrigation Water Quality 15 2.3.6.2 Irrigation Retum Flow 16 2.3.6.3 Groundwater Discharges due to Irrigation 18

2.3.7 Standard Sewage Lagoon and Sewage Lagoon Effluent Water Quality 20

2.3.8 Influence of Cattle Grazing on Creek Water Quality 20 2.9.9 Impact of Faning on Creek Water Quality 22

3 .O Methodology 24 3.1 Sampling Sites 24 3.2 Water Quality Sampling 26

3.2.1 Water Quality Sarnpling Frequency 26 3.2.2 Water Quality Sample Collection 28 3.2.3 Sampling Procedure for All Parameter Except Coliforni 29 3.2.4 Sampling Procedure for Coliform 33 3.2.5 Water Quality Samples Processing for Laboratory in Lethbndge 33

3.3 Parameter Analysis and Quality Control Procedures 3.4 Procedure for Massload Calculation 3.5 Flow, Precipitation and Land Use Data

4.0 Results and Discussion 39 4.1 Impact of Irrigation on Creek Water Quality 39

4.1.1 Flow and Precipitation 39 4.1.2 Nitrogen 42

4.1 -2.1 Ammonia 42 4.1.2.2 Nitrate 44 4.1.2.3 Nitrite 46 4.1 -2.4 Total Kjeldahl Nlrogen 47 4.1 2.5 Total Nitrogen 51

4.1.3 Phosphorus 51 4.1.4 Total Dissolved Solids 55 4.1.5 Total Suspended Solids 57 4.1.6 Fecal Coliform 60 4.1.7 Summary: Irrigation Tailwater lmpacts on Creek Water Quality 62

4.2 Sewage Lagoon Effluent Impact on Creek Water Quality 65 4.2.1 Flow 66 4.2.2 Nitrogen 67

4.2.2.1 Total Nitrogen 67 4.2.2.2 Ammonia 69 4.2.2.3 Nitrate 71 4.2.2.4 Nitrite 72 4.2.2.5 Total Kjelda hl Nitrogen 72

4.2.3 Phosphorus 74 4.2.4 Total Dissolved Solids 77 4.2.5 Total Suspended Solids 79 4.2.6 Fecal Coliform 81 4.2.7 Summary: Impact of Sewage Lagoon Effluent on Water Quality

of Crowfoot Creek 83 4.3 Quality Control 84

5.0 Conclusions 87 5.1 Summary of Project 87 5.2 Conclusions on Irrigation Tailwater Impacts on Creek Water Quality 88 5.3 Conclusions on Impact of Sewage Lagoon Effluent on Water

Quality of Crowfoot Creek 90

References 93

Appendices Appendix A Appendix B Appendix C Appendix D Appendix E Appendix F Appendix G Appendix H

Water Quality Guidelines Quality Control 1996 Flow and Precipitation Data 1997 Flow and Precipitation Data 1996 Water Quality Data 1997 Water Quality Data Julian Day - Date Conversion Analysis Methods for TDS Components

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 2.1 Figure 2.2

Figure 2.3 Figure 3.1

Figure 3.2 Figure 3.3 Figure 3.4 Figure 3.5

Figure 3.6 Figure 4.1 Figure 4.2 Figure 4.3 Figure 4.4 Figure 4.5 Figure 4.6 Figure 4.7 Figure 4.8 Figure 4.9 Figure 4.1 O Figure 4.1 1 Figure 4.: 2 Figure 4.13 Figure 4.14 Figure 4.1 5 Figure 4.16 Figure 4.17 Figure 4.18 Figure 4.19 Figure 4.20 Figure 4.21 Figure 4.22 Figure 4.23 Figure 4.24 Figure 4.25 Figure 4.26 Figure 4.27

Figure 4.28 Figure 4.29

Map of the Crowfoot Creek Watershed 4 Study Area - Larsen East basin of the Crowfoot Creek Waters hed 6 Biological Transformations of Nitrogen (CCREM 1987) 7 Sampling Site #15 at the end of an irrigation canal with a rain gauge, stilling well and automatic sarnpler 26 Manual Grab Sampling 30 Measuring the temperature of the creek water 30 3700 ISCO sampler and intake 32 Sample Bottle in ISCO automatic sampler surrounded by ice packs to preserve sample 32 Measuring flow using a current meter 37 FlowfPrecipitation for 1 996 40 FlowIPrecipitation for 1 997 40 1996 Irrigation Season NH, 43 1997 Irrigation Season NH, 43 Grazing around site #20 44 1996 Irrigation Season NO,-N 45 1997 Irrigation Season NOzN 45 1 997 l rrigation Season NO,-N 46 1996 Irrigation Season TKN 48 1997 Irrigation Season TKN 48 Areas with cattle grazing with free access to the creek 49 Fertilizer spill near site #20 51 1996 Irrigation Season PO, 52 1997 Irrigation Season PO4 52 1996 Irrigation Season TP 53 1997 Irrigation Season TP 53 1996 Irrigation Season TDS 56 1997 Irrigation Season TDS 56 1996 Irrigation Season TSS 58 1997 Irrigation Season TSS 58 1 996 I rrigaüon Season Fecal Coliform 61 1997 Irrigation Season Fecal Coliforni 61 1996 Lagoon Effluent Flow Data 66 1997 Lagoon Effluent Flow Data 66 1996 Lagoon Effiuent TN 68 1997 Lagoon Effluent TN 68 1996 Lagoon Lagoon discharge contribution tu 1997 Spnng Runoff Total Nitrogen massload 69 1996 Lagoon Effluent NH, 70 1997 Lagoon Effluent NH, 70

vii

Figure 4.30 Figure 4.31 Figure 4.32 Figure 4.33 Figure 4.34 Figure 4.35 Figure 4.36 Figure 4.37 Figure 4.38

Figure 4.39 Figure 4.40 Figure 4.41

Figure 4.42 Figure 4.43 Figure 4.44

Figure 4.45 Figure 4.46

1996 Lagoon Effluent NOrN 1997 Lagoon €Muent NOJU 1996 Lagoon Effluent TKN 1997 Lagoon Effluent TKN 1996 Lagoon Effluent PO, 1997 Lagoon Effluent PO, 1996 Lagoon Effluent TP 1997 Lagoon Effluent TF 1996 Lagoon Discharge contribution to 1997 Spring Runoff Total Phosphorus massload 1996 Lagoon Enluent TDS 1997 Lagoon Effluent TDS 1996 Lagoon Discharge contribution to 1997 Spring Runoff TDS massload 1996 Lagoon Effluent TSS 1997 Lagoon Effluent TSS 1996 Lagoon Discharge contribution to 1997 Spring Runoff TSS massload 1996 Lagoon Effluent Fecal Coliform 1997 Lagoon Effluent Fecal Coliform

viii

LIST OF TABLES

Table 2.1 Table 3.1 Table 3.2 Table 3.3 Table 3.4 Table 3.5 Table 3.6 Table 4.1 Table 4.2 Table 4.3 Table 4.4 Table H l

Irrigation Return Flow Quality (Boone 1976) 17 Larsen East Basin sampling site descriptions and purposes 24 Equipment at Larsen East basin sampling sites 25 Sarnpling Frequency 27 1996 Sampling Procedure by Site 28 1997 Sampling Procedure by Site 29 Laboratory analysis methods for vanous parameters 35 Ammonium accounts for small proportions of N in TKN by mass 47 Contribution of fiow events to irrigation season TSS massload 59 Results of t-test on Duplicates and Splits 85 Cornparison of Blanks and Other Samples 86 Laboratory analysis methods for TDS components 1 24

AAFRD

Avg.

"C

Ca

CCREM

CI

CO3 DP

FColi.

HCO,

h S o 4

JD

K

kg kglha

km

m 31s

Max.

Mg

Mg rnglL

mm

N

N* Na

Alberta Agriculture. Food and Rural Developrnent

Average

degrees Celsius

Calcium

Canadian Council of Resource and Environmental Ministers

C hloride

Carbonate

Dissolved Phosp horus

FecaI Coliform

Bicarbonate

Sulphuric Acid

Julian Day

Potassium

Kilogram

Kilograms per Hectare

Kilometre

cubic metres per second

Maximum

Magnesiurn

Megagram

Milligrams per Litre

millimetre

Nitrogen

Molecular Nitrogen

Sodium

NAQUADAT National Water Quality Data Bank

NH3 Ammonia

NH4 Ammonium

NO2 NO2-N

NO3 NO3-N

P

PO4 PP

so4 TDS

TKN

Total N

Tot. N.

TP

TSS

USA

WID

Yr

pglL

Nit rite

Nitrogen as Nitrite

Nitrate

Nitrogen as Nitrate

Phosp horus

Ortho-phosphate

Particulate Phosp horus

Sulphate

Total Dissolved Solids

Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen

Total Nitrogen

Total Nitrogen

Total Phosphorus

Total Suspended Solids

United States of America

Western Irrigation District

year

Micrograms per Litre

1 .O INTRODUCTION

Crowfoot Creek is a tnbutary of the Bow River, a major river in the Canadian

province of Alberta. The Bow River Water Quality Task Force (1 991) identified

nutrients, coliform bacteria and metals as the major contaminants within the reach

of the Bow River where Crowfoot Creek discharges. The Strategic and Support

Division of Alberta Environmental Protection (1995) cautions that it will become

increasingly difficult to maintain good water quality in the Bow River in the future if

no action is taken. A surface water quality study conducted by Madawaska

Consulting (1 995) found that nutrients (particularly phosphorus) and fecal coliform

bacteria usually exceeaed water quality guidelines.

In 1996 the Irrigation Branch of Alberta Agriculture, Food and Rural

Development (AAFRD) began a three year study to determine potential impacts on

water quality of Crowfoot Creek by agricultural practices within the Crowfoot Creek

watershed. McGill University was a partner in the study and this thesis is a major

part of its contribution.

This thesis focuses on a sub-basin of the Crowfoot Creek watershed, the

Larsen East basin. Irrigation takes place within the Larsen East basin and any

excess irrigation water is discharged into the creek as an irrigation tailwater. The

village of Standard is located within the Larsen East basin. Standard treats its

municipal sewage in a sewage lagoon. Effluent from the lagoon is annually

discharged into the creek over a one week period in late October. The decision to

release the lagoon effiuent during one week in the fall was taken by Alberta

Environmental Protection and mentioned in the license granted to the village of

Standard.

1 OBJECTIVES

The broad objective of this thesis is to detemine the impacts of irrigation

tailwater and sewage effluent on water quality of the Crowfoot Creek. The specific

objectives are to:

determine the impact on creek water quality by an irrigation tailwater,

ascertain the effect of discharging effluent from the village of

Standard's sewage lagoon on creek water quality,

propose explanations for the fluctuations in parameters of interest:

nitrogen as nitrite, nitrogen as nitrate, ammonium, total Kjeldahi

nitrogen, total nitragen, ortho-phosphate, total phosphorus, total

dissolved solids, total suspended solids and fecal coliform, and

identify sources of contamination with regard to the parameters of

interest.

The objectives of the thesis were attained while limiting the scope of the

study to the following. The Larsen East basin was delineated by AAFRD personnel.

Sampiing sites in the Larsen East basin (except one) were situated by AAFRD as

part of their study. The flow, precipitation and water quality data were provided by

AAFRD personnel. Sampling frequency was determined by AAFRD personnel,

although the author did have input with regard to sampiing frequency. The analysis

is based on data collected during the 1996 and 1997 sampling seasons.

2.0 BACKGROUND

2.1 LARSEN EAST STUDY - PART OF THE CROWFOOT CREEK PROJECT

In 1996, the Irrigation Branch of Alberta Agriculture, Food and Rural

Development (AAFRD) began an indepth study on the Crowfoot Creek watershed

(Figure 2.1) to determine the extent to which agricultural practices affect water

quality. The Crowfoot Creek watershed is approximately 1360 km2 in area. Twenty

nine monitoring sites were located across the watershed to obtain water quality, flow

and precipitation data. The project was designed to continue for three years starting

in 1996. The partners in the study were the Irrigation Branch of AAFRD, Alberta

Environmental Protection, Western Irrigation District, County of Wheatland, village

of Standard, Ducks Unlimited Canada, McGill University and the University of

Alberta. McGiil University's contribution was to study a sub-basin of the Crowfoot

Creek watershed in order to focus on water quality impacts within the sub-basin.

The Larsen East basin of the Crowfoot Creek watershed was selected as the study

site.

Data frorn 1996 and 1997 were collected from the Larsen East basin. Due

to the tirne required to install the equipment, no data were collected until July 1996.

Data from 1997 represent a complete sampling season; early spring through to

October. A few sampling sites were relocated and some new ones were installed

in 1997.

2.2 STUDY AREA

The Larsen East basin was chosen for two reasons. First, sampling of a

significant discharge of excess irrigation water into the creek was possible. This

provided an opportunity to study the impact of irrigation discharges on creek water

quality. Second, the impact on water quality of the creek by the sewage effluent

from the village of Standard's sewage lagoon needed to be determined. An

understanding of the lagoon's impact on water quality of the creek would help

explain water quality values observed downstream.

Figure 2.1 Map of the Crowfoot Creek watershed

The Larsen East basin (Figure 2.2) is approximately 169 km2 in area. A

smaller sub-basin (within which the village of Standard is located) is also part of the

Larsen East basin. Hills on the northern boundary of the Larsen East basin result

in some streams which account for the baseflow.

As can be seen in Figure 2.2 there are nine sampling sites in the Larsen East

basin. Site #15 is located at the end of an irrigation canal. After the excess

irrigation water passes by site #15 it is discharged into the creek downstream of site

#20. Discharges of excess irrigation water are also known as "irrigation tailouts" or

"irrigation tailwaters" or "irrigation return flows". In this t hesis d ischarges of excess

irrigation water shall be referred to as irrigation tailwaters. Irrigation water is

supplied from early May until the end of September. Site #3 is not located on the

creek between site #20 and #4 but on the eastern tributary of the creek. There is

no flow past site #3 other than during spring ninoff. It may be noted that in addition

to the tailwater at site #15, three other discharges of excess irrigation water take

place within the Larsen East Basin and are indicated by the "canal tailout without

structure" icon in Figure 2.2. These tailouts do not fom part of the analysis as they

were not sampled or their flow recorded. The number of sampling sites was limited

due to financial constraints. Site t26 is located at the discharge pipe where the

sewage lagoon effluent enters the creek. Effluent from the sewage lagoon is

released annually at the end of October. Downstream of site #2 there are hnro

artificial reservoirs in series. By October the reservoirs have dropped due to

evaporation and seepage losses. As a result, the lagoon effiuent is stored in the

reservoirs and does not flow past the second reservoir. Only during spring runoff

do the reservoirs produce autfiow. Sites #27 and #28 are situated at the outflow of

each of the respective reservoirs. The reservoirs f o n part of a Ducks Unlirnited

Canada project. Site #4 is located at the Larsen East basin's oufflow and 1 is at this

site where the impact of the Larsen East basin on downstrearn water quality was

quantfied.

From the presence of irrigation canals in the south-west portion of the basin

and field suiveys it may be stated that irrigated agriculture occurs within the basin.

Dryland faming and livestock grazing also occurs within the basin. It should be

noted that the pipeline shown in Figure 2.2 is used to supply water to a reservoir

which is used as a water source for the village of Standard.

Figure 2.2 Study Area - Larsen East basin of Crowfoot Creek watershed

6

2.3 LITERATURE REVIEW

The following literature review includes a discussion on sources and

mechanisms of movement of the parameters of interest. In addition a summary of

the existing literature on the impact on creek water quality by irrigation, sewage

lagoon discharges, grazing and agriculture pracüces is provided.

2.3.1 Nitrogen

Nitrogen

occurs in nature

in inorganic and

organic forms.

The inorganic

forms of nitrogen

include nitrate

Organic N - NH, - NO2 - NO,

- -- - - -- - --

Figure 2.3 ~ i o l o ~ i c a l Transformations of Nitrogen (CCREY 1987)

(NO,), nitrite (NO,), ammonia (NH,) and molecular nitrogen (N,) (CCREM 1987).

Major nitrogen species in the environment are interrelated by a complicated series

of transformations known collectively as the Nitrogen Cycle (Figure 2.3).

2.3.1 .l Ammonia Figure 2.3 shows that ammonia forms an essential link in the nlrogen cycle.

Arnmonia associated with clay minerals enters the aquatic environment through soi1

erosion (McNeely and others 1979a). Soluble ammonia and ammonium salts are

contained in commercial fertilizers. If the concentration of ammonia or ammonium

exceeds that of the immediate plant uptake, then transport via runoff frorn rainfall

or irrigation waters can carry these compounds into aquatic systems (McNeely and

others 1979a). Muchovej and Rechcigl(1995) state that ammonium fertilizers may

be biologically transformed to nitrate which in turn is susceptible to leaching.

Ammonia may also be discharged as a component of municipal wastewater

(Pommen 1983, in CCREM 1987). Brezonik (1 972) states that natural sources of

ammonia include groundwater, gas exchange with the atmosphere, chernical and

biochemical transformation of nitrogenous organic and inorganic matter in soi1 and

water. The excretion of ammonia by biota and the nitrogen fixation processes of

dissolved nitrogen gas in water (Brezonik 1972).

The environmental concentration range for ammonia in Western Canadian

surface waters is 0.014 - 2.00 mgIL(NAQUADAT 1985, in CCREM 1987). Natural

waters typically contain concentrations of less than 0.1 mglL. Concentration levels

greater than 0.1 mg/L may be indicative of anthropogenic activities (McNeely and

others 1 979a).

2.3.1.2 Nitrate

Most soluble nitrogen from agncultural land that reaches lakes, rivers and

aquifers is in the fonn of nitrate (NO,) (Muchovej and Rechcigl 1995). Muchovej

and Rechcigl(1995) explain the mobility of nitrate compounds by their high solubility

in soi1 solution and the ease by which they can be removed from anion exchange

sites. As nitrates are mobile they infiltrate into the groundwater. Therefore, high

NO, values frequently observed in strearns draining agricultural lands originate

predominately from groundwater (Muchovej and Rechcigl 1995). Nitrates tend to

move down the soi1 profile with the initial, infiltrating rain. away from the zone of

surface runoff removal. Consequently, nitrate in surface runoff is seldom closely

associated with antecedent nitrate content in surface soils. Exceptions rnay occur

when an intense rainstorm occurs shortly after surface application of a nitrate

containing fertilizer, or when the soi1 horizon barrier in the profile results in intemow

that reappears as surface runoff (Smith and others 1993; Legg 1982, in Muchovej

and Rechcigl 1995).

Potential agricukural sources of nitrogen as nitrate (NO3-N) contamination

include nitrogen fertilizers, runoff from feedlots and manure storage facilities along

with overloading of land with manure (Paterson and Lindwall 1992). USEPA (1976,

in CCREM 1987) found that municipallindustrial wastewaters and septic tanks are

significant principle anthropogenic point sources of nitrates. Human and animal

waste are a major source of nitrates (McNeely and others 1979b).

Surface waters contain at least trace levels of nlrate, often less than 1 mglL

and rarely as high as 5 mglL (CCREM 1987). Muchovej and Rechcigl(1995) cite

Bachrnan (1984) on the concentrations of NO,-N in natural surface water systems

being rarely greater than 3 mglL. Nitrate concentration levels in surface waters may

fluctuate, being higher in the winter rnonths. when groundwater input is

proportionally greater, and in the spring, when contributions from overland runoff are

substantial (McNeely and others 1979b).

2LLIii Nitrite

The nitrite ion (NO,') is less stable than the nitrate ion. Nitrites are oxidized

to nitrates and are rarely found in significant concentrations (Health and Welfare

Canada 1980, in CCREM 1987). Presence of nitrites in water indicates active

biological processes influenced by organic contamination (McNeely and others

1979~). According to Health Canada (7996) nitrite is directly toxic. Therefore a

maximum concentration of 3.2 mg/L (equivalent to 1 .O mglL nlrogen as nitrite (NO,-

N)) is recommended in cases where nitrate and nitrite are determined separately.

Industrial and municipal sewage plant discharges may contain nitrites. Nitrogen as

nitrite concentrations are usually in the order of 1 vgR and seldorn exceed 1 .O mg/L

(McNeely and others 1 979c, in CCREM 1987).

2.3.1 -4 Total Kjeldahl Nitroaen

Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN) is a measure of ammonia and organic nitrogen.

Arnmonia and organic nitrogen contribute to nutrients in water leading to

eutrophication making TKN a cornmon parameter of interest. Arnmonia and organic

nitrogen are important for assessing available nitrogen for biological activities.

Concentration of TKN in rivers that are not influenced by excessive organic inputs

range from 0.1 to 0.5 mgfL (McNeely and others 19794).

2.3.2 Phosphorus

Phosphorus (P) is an essential plant nutrient and is often considered a

limiting factor for plant growth (CCREM 1987). Elevated concentrations of plant

nutrients accelerate aquatic weed and algal growth in surface water ieading to

eutrophication which is a concern (Cross and Cooke 1996). As phosphorus is not

soluble and binds to soi1 particles, the main mechanisms by which P is lost are

runoff and erosion (Sharpley and others 1994). Domestic and industrial effluent

along with agricultural drainage from fertilized land contribute phosphonis to surface

waters (CCREM 1987). Sources of P in agricultural runoff include commercial

fertilizers and manure (Sharpley and others 1994).

Generally, elemental phosphorus does not occur in the natural environment,

but phosphorus in the form of orthophosphates, pyrophosphates, metaphosphates,

polyphosphates and organically bound phosphorus are found in natural waters.

Concentrations of the various forms of phosphorus are infiuenced by the exchange

of phosphonis between sedimentary and aqueous compartments (CCREM 1987).

The two foms of phosphonis that were of interest in the study were total

phosphorus (TP) and ortho-phosphate (PO,). Total phosphorus is a measure of al1

the phosphorus (in any fom) present in a water sample. Ortho-phosphorus

includes inorganic dissolved phosphorus but not organic phosphonis (Thomann and

Mueller 1987). Phosphorus found in surface runoff is in the form of dissolved

phosphorus (DP) and particulate phosphorus (PP). Dissolved P is composed

primarily of orthophosphates while particulate P includes P sorbed by soi1 particles

and organic matter eroded during ninoff. Particulate P nortnally constitutes the

major portion (7585%) of P found in runoff from conventionally tilled land (Sharpley

and o t h e ~ 1994). As runoff from grasslands does not carry much sediment, DP is

the primary form of P found in the runoff from these lands (Sharpley and others

1 994).

Phosphorus binds to soi1 particles. Therefore, the main mechanisms by

which P is lost from agricultural land are runoff and erosion. When rainfall or

irrigation occurs the water interacts with a thin layer of surface soi1 before leaving

the field as runoff. As the water passes over the soi1 desorption, dissolution and

extraction of P from the soil, crop residue, surface applied fertilizer and manure

takes place. The ninoff also contains sediments picked up due to erosion along

with dissolved P. Consequently, sorption or desorption with the runoff sediment

may occur. The transformation of OP into PP and vice versa depends on the

concentration of DP and PP in the runoff (Sharpley and others 1994). Phosphorus

is transported to surface waters as dissolved phosphorus in runoff and as

particulate phosphorus from eroding surface soil, strearnbanks and channel beds

(Sharpley and Halvorson 1994). During detachment and rnovement of soi1 in runoff

finer sized particles (clays, colloidal organic matter) are preferentially eroded. As

these particles contain most of the P found in the soi1 profile it is possible for eroded

material to possess a higher P concentration than the source soi1 (Sharpley and

others 1994).

Phosphorus is rarely found in high concentrations in surface waters as it is

actively taken up by plants (CCREM 1987). Phosphate concentrations between

0.01-0.05 mg/L are common for most natural surface waters in Canada (CCREM

1987). Observed values higher than these are usually an indicator of anthropogenic

activity.

2.3.3 Total Dissolved Sotids

The measurement of total dissolved solids (TDS) is an index of the amount

of dissolved substances in water, and gives a general indication of the chemical

quality of the water (CCREM 1987). Reid and Wood (1 976) state that TDS usually

refers to the inorganic substances that are dissolved in water. Faust and Aly (1981)

assert that the concentration of TDS in water depends on the weathering

characteristics of igneous and sedimentary rocks, runoff from soils and the influence

of anthropogenic sources. The latter can include municipal, industrial effluent,

agricultural runoff and atmospheric deposition. McNeely and others (1 979e) also

found that in periods of high surface runoff overland fiow contributes dissolved

materials to water. A significant source of salts in soi1 is irrigation. Salts are carried

with the irrigation water onto the land. The portion of the water supplied that is

consurned by the crop is essentially sa l free. Therefore, salts brought into an area

with the water supplied for imgation leach into the soil. As the water moves through

the soi1 it may pick up additional salts by dissolving weathered minerals or

previously precipitated salts. This water may then be removed by subsurface

drainage (Boone 1976). If there is no subsurface drainage then the water (and

salts) ends up in the groundwater. In a surface water quality study (Madawaska

Consulting, 1996) conducted on the County of Wheatland (within which the

Crowfoot Creek fiows) it was found that salinity was higher in May and June than

in the remainder of the year. CCREM (1987) states that the range for TDS

observed in western Canada was 0.002-5873 mglL.

2.3.4 Total Suspended Solids

Total suspended solids (TSS) is a measure of the sediments in a water

sarnple. Sediments become suspended in water and cause turbidity. Turbid waters

can impair water treatment processes while excessive sediment deposition can

degrade habitat for aquatic plants. aquatic organisms and ultirnately influence the

entire food chain (Cross and Cooke 1996). For this reason TSS is a common

parameter of interest. The mechanism of transport of total suspended solids (TSS)

is erosion of soi1 and subsequent runoff into the receiving water body along with

channel erosion (Switzer-Howse and Coote 1 984). Therefore, erosion enters any

discussion on TSS.

About 75-80% of the suspended sediment transported annually by streams

in Canada occurs in February, March and April. These months are usually

characterized by snowmelt, ninoff, rain with low impact energy and frozen soi1 or

saturated layers near the sail surface (Switzer-Howse and Coote 1984). Erosion

due to rainfall is commonly greatest du ring short-du ration hig h-intensity

thunderstorms, during snowmelt and periods when soils have high soi1 water

content along with minimal vegetative cover (Cross and Cooke 1996). Soil erosion

measurements on small upland watersheds, in Ohio, totaling 229 watershed-years

found that most of the total erosion over a long term period of record cornes from

a few large stoms (Edwards and Owens 1991). Menzel and others (1978)

observed 900 - 3,900 kglha sediment in waters draining dryland wheat in

Oklahoma.

2.3.5 Fecal Coliform

Bacteria occur naturally in freshwater and many are of no consequence to

human health. Some types of bacteria enter aquatic environrnents as a result of

human activity (e.g.. sewage input, agricultural and urban runoff) and rnay pose

health threats. Coliform bacteria are commonly used as indicatorç of anthropogenic

impacts on water quality (Saffran 1996). Greenberg and others (1 992, in Saffran

1996) state that fecal coliforni originate from the gastrointestinal tract of w a n

blooded anirnals. Total coliforni on the other hand may originate from non-fecal

sources such as organîc matter and soi1 (Saffran 1996). Due to their origin fecal

coliform, as opposed to total coliform, are a good indicator of contamination of the

water source by animal feces. Doran and Linn (1 979) also recommend fecal

coliform as a good indicator of cattle activity in a watershed.

Animal wastes have been found to be a source of fecal coliform found in

natural bodies of water. Clemm (1977) found that viable fecal colifom remain in

animal wastes for up to one year. Consequently these may serve as potential

sources for fecal coliform organisms into the streamwater, long after the animals

have left the watershed. It also follows that the impact on water quality of removing

the animals from the watershed may not be seen for up to a year. Similarly fecal

coliform organisrns may survive in soi1 for up to 2 weeks (Van Donsel and others

1976) and up to 6 weeks in surface waters (Clemrn 1977). Howell and others

(1 995) found that deposition of fecal coliform in streams led to increased survival

and regrowth of coliform in the streambed sedirnents. Subsequent resuspension

may elevate fecal colifonn concentrations in the absence of cattle and rainfall

(Howell and others 1995).

Studies on water draining agricultural lands provide information on the range

of fecal coliform values obsewed in such waters. Fecal contamination at any time

is influenced by complex interactions which are dynamic and can cause the fecal

bacteria concentration to var- dramatically with time at any given site (Howell and

others 1995). Thelin and Gifford (1983) found that bovine fecal deposits that had

not been rained on for 5 days yielded colifonn in the millionIl00 mL range while

fecal deposits that had not been rained on for 30 days yielded 40,0001100 mL

coliform. From experiments conducted on grazed and ungrazed rangeland in

southwest Idaho, Stephenson and Street (1 978) found fecal colifom counts up to

2,5001100 mL at channel sites near cattle. Tiedemann and others (1987) found

fecal coliform counts above 2,0001100 mL in waters near intensive livestock

operations in Oregon (USA). In the study of Howell and others (1 995) fecal coliform

when present ranged from 350i100 mL - 20,0001100 mL in waters draining

agricultural land in Kentucky (USA).

There have been a few studies of fecal coliform water contamination in

Alberta which are of interest. In a study conducted on the Bow River and its

tributaries by Sosiak (1 996) high levels of fecal coliforni were found in the Crowfoot

Creek. Unfortunately , the extent to which this would affect mainstem coliform

counts of the Bow River could not be detennined. Madawaska Consulting (1 995)

conducted a surface water quality project for the County of Wheatland where

Crowfoot Creek is situated. This project found that fecal coliform are impacting

water quality. There were insufficient data to identify the specific sources but

potential sources include feedlots, grazing areas or cattle watering.

2.3.6 Impact of Irrigation on Creek Water Quality

2.3.6.1 lrriaation Water Quality

lrigated faning takes place within the Larsen East basin. Excess water not

used for irrigation is discharged into Crowfoot Creek and may impact water quality

of the creek. The irrigation water supplied to the farmers in the Crowfoot Creek

basin is provided by the Western Irrigation District (WID). The WID in turn obtains

the water from the Bow River within the City of Calgary. A report prepared by W-E-

R AGRA (1994), on the WID headwaters, cautions that there were indications of

problems with water quality relative to the water quality guidelines for irrigation,

dnnking water and livestock watenng with respect to the following parameters: fecal

coliform, total phosphorus and total dissolved solids. W-E-R AGRA (1 994) did not

identify the source of the contaminants, but stomwater from Calgary was

considered a potential source. The report cautions however that this conclusion

was made in Iight of the relatively good water quality in the Bow River near the

intake of the WID canal. Greenlee and Lund (1 995) cite Hamilton and others (1 982)

as observing the quality of water used in the irrigation district with respect to

average TDS being 174-212 mgR. A study by Madawaska Consuking (1 996) for

the WID found that irrigation canal water occasionally violated water quality

guidelines for irrigation with respect to fecal coliforni (Le.. 100 countsf 100mL). Also,

total phosphonis was high in May at sampling sites on the irrigation canal network.

Studies by Alberta Agriculture prior to 1991 did not find that irrigation water

quality was a serious problem (Paterson 1 991). As water quality problems related

to irrigation were not a serious problern in Alberta, not many studies have been

conducted on irrigation water quality itself. There are more studies on return flow

water quality issues discussed in the next section.

2.3.6.2 lrriaation Return Flow

Water diverted for irrigation but not used for irrigation is returned to natural

bodies of water and the channels of such water are known as "return flows". Often

overland runoff or subsurface drainage enters these "return flows" raising water

quality concerns. Bolseng (1991) cites Bametson (1985) as computing that on

average 29% of the total volume diverted for irrigation in Alberta results in return

flow. Irrigation return flows are of sufficient volume that they rnay have an impact

on the water quality of receiving streams (Bolseng 1991 ). To the contrary Greenlee

and Lund (1995) argue that the impact of irrigation return fiow water on receiving

rivers was diminished by dilution which ranged from a factor of 15 to greater than

600 times.

Many studies focusing on retum flows have been conducted in Alberta, some

of which are discussed. A "one-time only" sampling of 38 return fiow channels in

six irrigation districts in Alberta by Bolseng (1991) found the average NO,-N of al1

samples to be 0.1 rnglL, well below the drinking water guideline of 10 mglL. A study

by Greenlee and othen (1 993) studied four irrigation return flow streams in southem

Alberta and found a maximum value of 1.86 mgR for NO,-Nt well below the drinking

water guideline of 10 mglL. With respect to TDS, 11 % of the samples exceeded the

drinking water guideline of 500 mgiL while no samples exceeded the livestock

consumption and irrigation guidelines of 3,000 mg/L and 500-3,500 mgR

respectively. Greenlee and others (1 993) comment that the elevated constituent

levels in their study were closely related to surface ninoff durhg and immediately

following major precipitation events. Table 2.1, from Boone (1 W6), summarizes

probable changes in return flow water quality as a result of irrigation.

Table 2.1 : Irrigation Return Flow Quality (Boone 1976) - - -

Quality 1 Irrigation Return Flow Factors

Nitrate

L

Surface Drainage

Salts (TDS)

More likely a slight increase than a decrease, but highly variable.

Not greatly different from sources

Phosphate

Prhogens 1 Variable and may and other increase or decrease. or anisms

Content rnay increase, but closely correlated with erosion of fertile topsoil.

Sediment & Colloids

Sub-Surface Drainage

Often more than in source but may be less - hig hly variable.

Concentrations increased usually 5-7 times depending on the amount of salt in the supply, number of times reused, the amount of residual salts being removed and the amount of non- agricultural sources.

Likely to decrease if the content in irrigation water is high and increase if amounts are low. Greatest hazard from heavily fertilized porous soils and irrigation.

Decrease if considerable in the source. Not likely to greatly increase

Little or no sediment or colIoidal material.

- - -

Low content with a likely reduction in most pathogens. Other organisms may increase or decrease.

Greenlee and Lund (1995) began a three year sampling program of the Lethbridge

North Irrigation District in Southem Alberta in 1994. The results of the first year

revealed some surprising results. High levels of total dissolved solids, nitrate-

nitrogen, phosphate-phosp horus along with fecal coliform values as high as 150,000

counts/l00 mL were observed at one of the three sites. Cattle with free access to

the sampling site were suggested as the possible reasons for the high constituent

levels.

A preliminary evaluation of the results from several synoptic surveys

conducted on the Bow River by Sosiak (1996) concluded:

"Irrigation return flow had higher levels of phosphorus, dissolved ammonia, coliform, suspended sediments and certain ions (sodium, potassium, sulphate, chloride) than streams, but lower levels of other variables (nitratelnitrite, bicarbonate, silica, calcium, hardness). Loadings of most of these substances to the river from return flows were relatively small during the 1995 survey."

A more detailed explanation for the levels of various pararneters is provided

in a report by Madawaska Consulting (1 997) on irrigation district water quality:

"The data clearly indicate that there is a change in water quality as it moves from source water to return flow in the irrigation districts. For the most part, concentrations of salinity pararneters, total phosphorus and pathogens increase, while nitrate+nitrite often decreases. Salinity parameters are most directly affected by runoff over saline soils or discharge of saline groundwater. The increase in total phosphorus can be attributed to the movernent of soi1 particles and nutrient management practices. This despite the fact that phosphorus is removed from the water as it is incorporated into plant matter in the canal or stream. Because bacteria naturally decay (die) over time, any increase from source water to return fiow can be attributed to additions by animal waste. The decrease in nitrate can be attributed to incorporation into biological material, but the process of denitrification also converts nitrate to nitrogen gas which is released into the atmosphere."

Another study on the water quality within the WID was initiated in 1996 by

Madawaska Consulting. Their findings indicate that the water quality tended to

deteriorate between main canal sites and the return flow sites, particularly when

precipitation was high and inputs from runoff were higher.

2A&3 scharges due to Irriaation

Groundwater discharges into Crowfoot Creek are a potential source of

contamination within the Larsen East Basin. A significant portion of such

groundwater discharges may be due to irrigation. Recently a groundwater study

was conducted by Rodvang (1997) of AAFRD for part of the Crowfoot Creek

watershed. The study area included part of the Larsen East basin. Findings of this

study are presented below.

Rodvang (1 997) explains that irrigation causes groundwater recharge which

in tum causes groundwater discharge into surface waters. Simulations found that

without irrigation, discharge rates would decrease by 55% to part of the Crowfoot

Creek watershed. The results of the investigation show that canal seepage causes

increased recharge rates at some locations, and that increased recharge will tend

to increase the salinity of surface water and soils in the discharge area. Saline and

wet soils found in low areas around Crowfoot Creek by Rodvang (1997) may be

explained by such recharges. Rodvang (1 997) computed that the ratio of water in

the creek to groundwater discharge to the creek as being 11 :l. Rodvang (1 997)

estimates that 73-161 mg/L of TDS is added to the creek frorn groundwater

discharge.

The bedrock aquifefs water quality was detemined using samples taken

from domestic wells within the Crowfoot Creek basin. Of the 287 wells sampled

only 7% had water which met the drinking water guideline for TDS of 500 rnglL, with

levels mostly between 500 to 2,000 mglL (Rodvang 1997). Approximately 40% of

198 wells sampled for nitrate contained more than 0.1 mg/L nitrate + nitrite, 20%

contained more than 2 mglL and 8% exceeded the Canadian drinking water

guideline of 10 mglL(Rodvang 1997). Lack of correlation between depth and nitrate

occurrence suggested that the nitrate in domestic wells was derived in many cases

from point sources of contamination, rather than non-point source agricultural

contamination (Rodvang 1997). In contmst to the domestic wells, the evidence from

piezometers suggested that nitrate in the study area was derived from agricultural

sources. The levels of total dissolved solids, in the piezometers (depth ranging from

2-70 m below ground), exceeded the Canadian drinking water guidelines at al1 test

sites in the Crowfoot Creek Basin (Rodvang 1997).

2.3.7 Standard Sewage Lagoon and Sewage Lagoon Effluent Water Quality

The village of Standard located within the Larsen East basin treats its

municipal sewage in a sewage lagoon. Treated effiuent is discharged to the creek

which may impact the creek's water quality. Standard's sewage lagoon is of 4s-2L

configuration (i.e. 4 cells with short residence time and 2 cells with long residence

tirne) (Prince and others 1993). Prince and others (1 993) comment that intermittent

discharge lagoons are used to avoid effluent discharges during penods of poor

effluent quality and low assimilative capacity of the receiving water that occurs in the

winter due to ice cover. Standard's sewage lagoon is an intermittent discharge

sewage lagoon, discharging the treated effluent only in October.

Using data collected from sewage lagoons across Alberta, Prince and others

(1993) computed the average concentration of TSS, P, NH, and TKN of effluent

from 4s-2L sewage lagoon discharges, which were 20.4, 2.2. 1.3 and 5.3 mg/L

respectively. Based on daily monitoring of effluent quaMy from the village of Legal's

(near Edmonton, Alberta) sewage lagoon's discharge Prince and othen (1993)

concluded that there was little variation in effluent quality over time with respect to

total suspended solid and fecal colifon.

2.3.8 Influence of Caffle Grazing on Creek Water Quality

Along the Crowfoot Creek, the surrounding flood plain is used to graze cattle.

Grazing may result in deposition of manure directly on the land in pastures and

manure may become concentrated near feeding and watenng areas (Sutton 1990,

in Greenlee and Lund 1995). Deposited manure rnay be carried to a nearby water

body with runoff. Kirchmann (1 994) lists a number of studies which show that runoff

from grazing lands contribute to the contamination of watersheds by bacteria.

Cross and Cooke (1 996) report that Robbins (1979) found that compaction of the

soi1 from cattle's hooves and grazing practices caused high ninoff from heavily

grazed watersheds. Tiedemann and others (1988) stress the importance of the

proximity of cattle to the severity of fecal coliform contamination. Gary and others

(1983) comment that the intensity of grazing influences the fecal coliforni

concentration of nearby water bodies. In their study it was observed that cattle

spent more than 65% of the day within 100 rn of the stream. Gary and others

(1 983) explain the presence of the cattle near the stream due to the availability of

water and the lush riparian vegetation. The cattle were in or adjacent to the stream

5% of the time and 5% of the cattle's defecation was directly into the stream.

Tiedemann and others (1987) found that the fecal coliform counts in a stream.

running through pastures in Oregon, increased six fold when cattle were allowed

back into the pastures after a period of absence. For pastures in Oregon they

observed that the loadings of fecal coliform varied seasonally as follows: winter <

surnmer < snowmelt runoff. The snowmelt runoff was ten times the winter loading

while the summer was five tirnes the winter loading. Wintering grounds for cow-calf

operations contain lower livestock densities than feedlots. However the higher

densities during the winter can cause a localized accumulation (unlike summer

grazing) of Iivestock waste that can be easily transported to surface water in spring

runoff (Cross and Cooke 1996). Chichester and others (1979) found that winter

feeding caused a high degree of soi1 and plant cover disturbance and an increase

in runoff and erosion as compared with pastures grazed only in the summer.

Feeding of cattle in a winter feeding area increased runoff that caused more nutrient

and salt movement as compared to pastures only grazed in the summer (Cross and

Cooke 1996). Livestock induced sediment loss is a potential impact from grazing.

A study conducted by Owens and others (1 996) on a pastured watershed, in Ohio,

set out to obsewe the impact of fencing the cattle out of the stream. They do not

mention the distance of the fencing from the stream. A 50% decrease in annual

sedirnent concentration and a 40% decrease in average soi1 loss was observed.

The view that animal grazing may be a threat to public health is not shared by all.

Buckhouse and Gifford (1 976) stated that cattle grazing on semi-and watersheds

in southeastem Utah posed no threat to public health. However. they caution that

their conclusion was based on an experiment conducted on a small plot and

cautioned that such conclusions may not be applicable for large areas.

2.9.9 Impact of Farming on Creek Water Quality

lrrigated and dryland farming takes place within the Larsen East basin and

may affect creek water quality. Brichford and others (1993) caution that as nitrate

is a mobile nutrient it is susceptible to leaching if excessive nitrogen fertilizer is

applied prior to rain or irrigation. A study conducted by Burnett (1 981) in Taber, in

Alberta, found little evidence of nitrate from fertilizers leaching into the groundwater

due to irrigation on sandy soils. Hodgkin and Hamilton (1993) comment that

excessive application of phosphorus fertilizer had led to an accumulation of

phosphorus in the soi1 in areas draining into the Harvey River in Australia. A

decrease in applicatim of super-phosphate to sandy soils in the study area resulted

in a signifcant reduction of flow-weig hted phosphorus. Brichford and others (1 993)

found that despite soi1 tests indicating high or very high levels of phosphorus in the

soi1 farrners continued to add phosphorus fertilizer. Manure is a common source

of nutrients for farming. Brichford and others (1993) state that manure contains

nitrogen, phosphorus, inorganic salts, organic solids and microorganisms. All of

these are potential contaminants of surface and groundwater. Ritter (1 988)

cautions that akhough manure application rates are recomrnended on the basis of

N requirement of the crop the amount of P should be also taken into account. If the

amount of P in the manure supersedes that required then P will accumulate in the

upper layer of soil. This increased level of P in the upper soi1 layer leads to

increased levels of P in runoff (Sharpley and othen 1994). Quissenberry and

othen (1980) in Ritter (1988) state that manure applied in the fall may result in

nitrate leaching. Agricultural activities such as tillage, crop harvesting, summer

fallow etc. can leave the soi1 exposed. Exposed soi1 is susceptible to erosion by

wind and rain. In this manner agriculture can contribute to the sediment load of

surface waters (Brichford and others 1993).

In surnmary, this thesis focuses on the Larsen East basin which is part of the

Crowfoot Creek watershed. The preceding literature review discussed sources and

mechanisms of movement of the parameters of interest which are: ammonium,

nitrogen as nitrate, nitrogen as nitrite, total Kjeldahl nitrogen, total phosphorus,

dissolved phosphate. total dissolved solids, total suspended solids and fecal

colifon. Existing literature on the impact on creek water quality by irrigation,

sewage lagoon discharges, grazing and agriculture practices were also

summarized.

3.0 METHODOLOGY

To meet the objectives set out in section 1.1 reliable, accurate and

comprehensive information was required. This section will outline the procedures

and equipment by which the information required for analysis was obtained.

3.1 SAMPLING SITES

Sampling sites were selected on the basis of basin boundaries. Individual

purposes of sites #2,4 and 15 were detailed in Buckland (1 996) while sites #3, 20

and 26 were added after the study was initiated in response to the need for

additional information. The location of the sampling sites can be seen in Figure 2.2.

Table 3.1 describes the purpose of each sampling site.

Table 3.1 Larsen East Basin sampling site descriptions and purpose

Site # Description of Site l Purpose

Located downstream of the Village of Standard's sewage lagoon and upstream of Ducks Unlimited reservoirs.

Detenine and factor out, impact of annual sewage releases.

Situated 500 m downstream of the Ducks Unlimited resewoirs. The site was installed in the fall of 1996 after the study had begun and was an active sampling site for the 1997 sampling season.

Determine transformation of upstream loadings to the reservoirs and contribution of reservoirs to downstream water quality.

Outflow from the Larsen East basin To integrate retention and and as such reflect the impact of 1 loadings from north the basin on the Crowfoot Creek watershed.

~rowfoot Creek.

Located at the end of an irrigation canal. After the water passes this site it enters a 1000 m pipeline from which the water exits into the creek 500 m downstream of site #20.

Situated near a cattle grazing operation and 500 m upstrearn of the irrigation tailwater discharges into the creek.

Located at the oufflow of the Village of Standard's sewage lagoon. Sampling was only conducted here during treated sewage discharge.

Monitor loadings from irrigation tailwater into Crowfoot Creek.

To gain an understanding of the baseline water quality before the addition of the irrigation tailwater.

Provide information on the relative contribution of the sewage lagoon on water quality within the basin.

The equipment at each site used to obtain water quality, flow rate and rainfall

information are listed in Table 3.2. Equipment at site #15 can be seen in Figure 3.1.

After the 1996 sampling season there was some relocation of equipment and

addition of sites as can be seen in Table 3.2.

Table 3.2 Equipment at Larsen East basin crarnpling sites

1996 Staff ~tillingl~utomatic 1 tipping

1987 Staff I~tilling l~utomatic

Sauge

--

Tipping

lnstalled in Fall 1996 I J I J 1

~ucke t Rain

Gauge

Well

The staff gauges were constnicted of 1.5 m long snow fencing poles on which 0.91

rn (3') sections of marked staff gauges were attached. In addition, precipitation data

J J

Sampler

J J

Bucket Rain

Gauge

J J

Gauge Well Sampler

from a sampling site outside the Larsen East basin, approximately 500 m from site

#4, were also used in the analysis.

Figure 3.1 : Sampling Site #15 at the end of an irrigation canal with a tain gauge, stilling well and

automatic sampler

3.2 WATER QUALITY SAMPLING

The water samples were collected with the intent to analyze for NO,-Nt NO,-

N, TKN. NH,, TP, PO,, TDS, TSS and fecal coliform. Water sarnples were only

collected if the water was flowing in the creewirrigation canal.

3.2.1 Water Quality Sampling Frequency

The sampling seasons of 1996 and 1997 can be characterized by four

"types" of sampling: "Spring Runoff", "Routine", "Eventl' and "Lagoon Discharge".

"Spring Runoff" was the sampling conducted early in 1997 during the snowmelt.

Sampling was initiated affer the snowmelt and concluded when the creek froze

again in the fall. It consisted of a sample taken every Wednesday. Such sampling

was termed "Routine". To gain more detailed information related to precipitation

events, "Event" sampling was conducted. Finally, the impact of the effluent

discharge from the village of Standard Sewage Lagoon was studied using "Lagoon

Discharge" sampling. Table 3.3 summarizes the sampling frequency for the 1996

and 1997 sampling season along with the periods when various ("Spring RunoW',

"Routine", "€vent1' or 'Lagoon Discharge") samp!ing was conducted.

Table 3.3 Sampling Frequency

Year

- 1996

1997

Purpose

Routine sampling

Event Sampling

Lagoon Discharge Sam pling

Spring Runoff

Routine sarnpling

Event Sampling

Lagoon Discharge Sampling

Duration

Jul. 24-0ct. 30 (Julian day 206-304)

Sept. 20-21 (Julian day 263- 264)

Oct. 21 -25 (Julian day 295- 299)

Mar. 22-23 (Julian day 81- 82),

Mar. 25-Apr. 4 (Julian day 84-94),

Apr. 9 (Julian day 99), Apr. 13-1 8 (Julian day 103-

108)

Apr. 23-0ct. 29 (Julian day 82-)

May 27 (Julian day 147)

Once a

week

Daily

Oct. 27-Nov 4 (Julian day 300-308)

Twice a Day

J

J

J

J

1

J

J

J

The sampling frequency for routine and event sampling was determined by

AAFRD personnel. Sampling frequency for the lagoon discharge was

recommended by the author after consultations with Dr. S. Barrington (McGill

University, Personal Communication. 1997), A. Sosiak (Alberta Environmental

Protection, Personal Communications, 1996) and Dr. R. Zytner (University of

Guelph, Personal Communications, 1996). The result of this consultation was that

the frequency of sampling was set at twice a day because this would provide

adequate water quality data for the lagoon effluent.

3.2.2 Water Quality Sample Collection

The water samples from al1 sites were collected and then transported to the

field laboratory in ice chests with freezer packs. Tables 3.4 and 3.5 summarize the

sampling conducted in the 1996 and 1997 sarnpling seasons for all parameters

except coliform. Descriptions of the sampling procedures are in section 3.2.3.

Table 3.4 1996 Sampling Procedure by Site

Sampling Type 1 Site # 1 Grab Sample 1 24 Hour II 1 1 1 Composite II

pp - - --

Routine Sarnpling 1 2,1 S,2O ] 1 3 1 Site did not exist in 1996 11

Lagoon Discharge 1 2.26 1 J Sam~lina

Event Sampling 2,4,15,20

3 J 1

Site did not exist in 1996

Table 3.5 1997 Sarnpling Procedure by Site

Sampling L

26 At lagoon outlet therefore not sampled 1 I

Sampling Type

Routine Sampling 1 2,20 1 J 1 1 l 3,4815 1 I J I

Site #

3 J I

26 At lagoon outlet therefore not sampled

Lagoon Discharge 2,26 J Sampling

3.2.3 Sampling Procedure for All Parameters Except Coliform

Grab Sample

The sampling procedure for al1 parameters except coliform mentioned in

section 3.2.2 are descrîbed below. Three different methods of sampling were used:

grab, 24 hour composite and mixed.

Grab sampling (Figure 3.2) used a 2 L plastic bottle which was attached to

a 5 rn pole by means of a clamp. The cap of the 2 L bottle was removed and the

pole was extended into the fiow of the channel. The bottle was submerged, with the

neck pointing downstream, 30 cm (1') below the water surface and tumed upstream

and the bottle was partially filled. The bottle was brought back to the streambank

and the lid was screwed on and the bottie was then shaken to rinse the inside of the

bottle. In this manner the bottle was rinsed three times. Using the 2 L bottle a 500

mL sample bottle was filled and a thennometer was inserted into the 500 m l bottle

and temperature of the water was noted (Figure 3.3). The 2 L bottle was filled for

a final tirne, capped and stored in an ice chest with freezer packs until the sample

24Hour Composite

Mixed(Grabo 24 Hour

Composite)

was processed at the field laboratory. Temperature of the creek water in the 500

rnL bottle was required in the laboratory analysis for ammonia (NH,).

Figure 3.2: Manual grab sampling

Figure 3.3: Measuring the temperature of the creek water

The 24 Hour Composite sampling was conducted with ISCO1 automatic

samplers (Figure 3.4,3.5) which were set on ''tirnef' sarnpling mode to sarnple every

'Disclaimer Manufacturer's name is included for reader's information only and does not imply endorsement

2 hours. After 24 hours a composite sample was collected and the sarnple bottle

was shaken to mix settled sediments. A 2 L bottle was rinsed thtee times with the

water from the automatic sampler bottle. The 2 L bottle was filled with water from

the automatic sampler bottle and stored in an ice chest with freezer packs until it

was processed at the field laboratory. A 500 mL bottle was dipped into the

streamlcanal and the temperature of the water in the bottle was measured. As with

the grab sample, the creek water's temperature was required for the ammonia (NH,)

a nalysis procedure.

A mixed (grab or 24 hour composite) method of sampling was applied when

rainfall events were anticipated. In this case the automatic sarnplers were changed

from temporal to flow mode to collect up to 17 samples of 400-550 mL when

triggered by the datalogger in the stilling well. The dataloggers triggered the

automatic sampler after a preprogrammed change in water level. For 1997, the

water level increment for each sampling site was site specific based on the 1996

hydrographs after precipitation events. An effort was made to choose water level

increments in such a way as to collect water samples on the rising and falling limb

of the hydrograph in a precipitation event. If suffkient water was collected by the

automatic sampler then a 2 L bottle was rinsed three times with the sample water.

After this the 2 L bottle was filled with the water to be analyzed. However, if

insufficient water for a sample was collected by the sampler then a grab sarnple was

collected. as described before. The temperature of the water was also measured.

For the 1996 sampling season the 2 L sarnple bottles used to collect the grab

samples and transport the composite samples were cleaned in the following

manner. lnto each bottle 5 mL of Extran 300' (a phosphate free alkaline

concentrate) liquid detergent was poured in each bottle after which the bottles were

filled with deionized water and allowed to soak ovemight. The lids were allowed to

soak in an Extran 300 soap bath overnight. Bottles and lids were then washed in

2Disclairner: Manufacturer's narne is included for reader's information only and does not imply endorsement.

an automatic dishwasher (Fisher Jet Clean Model628') for 4 washing cycles. The

four wash cycles used: hot tap water. hot tap water with Extran 300, hot tap water

and room temperature deionized water respectively. Finally, the bottles and lids

were then rinsed twice by hand with room temperature double deionized water. In

1997 the procedure was modified to make the final wash cycle use room

temperature double deionized water rather than deionized water and there was no

hand rinsing after the dishwasher.

Figure 3.4: 3700 ISCO sampler and intake

Figure 3.5: Sarnple bottle in ISCO automatic sampler sutrounded by

ice packs to preserve sample

In 1996 the sample bottles placed inside the ISCO automatic sarnplers were

washed in the following manner. lnto each bottle 2 mL of Extran 300 was poured.

The bottles were then filled with deionized water and allowed to soak ovemight.

'Disclaimer. Manufacturer's name is included for reader's information only and does not imply endorsement

Bottles and lids were rinsed ten times with hot tap water. Deionized water was then

used to rinse the bottles and lids three times. Finally, the bottles and lids were

rinsed twice with double deionized water. In 1997 the bottles for ISCO samplers

were not washed, instead plastic bags were placed and used as linen in the bottles.

A new plastic bag was used each time a composite sample was collected.

3.2.4 Sampling Procedure for Coliform

The water sarnples for coliform analysis were collected in bottles provided

by the Provincial Laboratory of Public Health for Southern Alberta in Calgary. The

250 mL bottles had been stetilized and sodium thiosulphate powder was added to

preserve the sample. Water samples were collected in one of three ways: i) the

coliform bottle was attached to the end of a 5 rn sarnpling pole by elastic bands and

submerged in the flow until the bottle was filled; ii) afier the 2 L bottle used in a grab

sample was rinsed three times it was filled with water brought to the bank and the

colifomi bottle was filled; or iii) if the flow was high and could be reached by hand

then the coliform bottle was held in the sampling individual's hand and subrnerged

in the flow until it was filled. The coliform samples were stored at 4°C (in a fridge)

until they were transported by courier to the Provincial Laboratory of Public Health

for Southern Alberta (in Calgary) in an ice chest with a few freezer packs. All

samples were delivered to the laboratory within 24 hours.

3.2.5 Water Quality Samples Processing for Laboratory in Lethbridge

After the water samples were collected from the sampling sites they were

brought to the field laboratory in the town of Strathmore, located approximately 25

km west of the Larsen East Sub-basin. At the field laboratory the sample from each

site was partitioned in the following manner. A 500 rnL plastic bottle was triple

33

rinsed with the sample water after which it was filled. This bottle was analyzed for

Total Suspended Solids. Similarly, a 125 mL plastic bottle was triple rinsed with the

sample water after which it was filled with the sample water. To preserve the

sample until the samples were delivered to the laboratory 2 mL of 5% H,SO, was

added to the 125 mL bottle . This bottle was analyzed for TP, TKN and NH,. Using

a filter cup (0.45 pm filter paper) and a vacuum pump a quantity of the sample was

filtered and with the filtrate a 125 mL bottle was triple rinsed. The bottle was then

filled with the filtrate. This bottle was analyzed for NO,-N, NO,-N, TDS and PO,.

Using the same filter cup approx 150 mL of filtrate was obtained to triple rinse a 125

mL bottle and fiIl the bottle. A pipette was used to add 2 mL of 5% H,SO, to the

sample to preserve the sample until they were analyzed in the laboratory in

Lethbridge. This sample was analyzed for DP. Finally, the bottles were stored at

4°C (in a fridge) until they were transported to the laboratory the following day in an

ice chest with freezer packs.

3.3 PARAMETER ANALYSIS AND QUALITY CONTROL PROCEDURES

The water quality samples were analyzed by the AAFRD laboratory in

Lethbridge for al1 parameten except coliform. Colifonn samples were analyzed at

the Provincial Laboratory of Public Health for Southern Alberta in Calgary. Table

3.6 describes the analysis procedures used for the various parameters.

Table 3.6 Laboratory analysis methods for various parameters

N itrogen as Nitrate (NO,-N) 1 Automated Hydrazine Red uction Method

Parameter

Nlrogen as Nitrite (NO&

Analysis Method (Greenberg and others 1992)

Colorimetric Method

Ammonium (NH,) 1 ~utoma&l phen% Method

Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN)

Total Phosphorus (TP) 1 Automated Ascorbic Acid Reduction Method

Semi-Micro-Kjeldahl Method and Automated Phenate Method

Ortho-phosp hate (PO,) 1 Automated Ascorbic Acid Reduction Method

Total Dissolved Solids (TDS)

FecaI Coliform 1 Membrane Filtration5

Deterrnined using the foll&ing equation4: TDS=Ca+Mg+Na+K+CI+SO,+

(0.6*(HCO3+CO3))+(4.43*NO3-N)

Total Suspended Solids ( T W

To ensure the reliability of the water sample analysis, quality control

- - -

Total ~us~endedSol ids Dried at 103-1 05 C

measures were undertaken. In 1996, a quality control sample was taken at every

tenth site on each sampling day. As there were approximately 20 sites in the

Crowfoot Creek watershed, two quality control samples were taken. Automatic

samplers collected enough water tu fiIl two 2 L bottles which were treated as two

samples, the original and the "split". At sites where there were no automatic

samplers two grab samples were taken from the same location, the original and the

"duplicate". In 1997 two quality control samples, a split and a duplicate, were

collected weekly from two sites within the Crowfoot Creek watershed. Unlike the

previous sampling season a deliberate effort was made to pick the sites from which

the split and duplicate were taken, to be from the east and west part of the Crowfoot

Creek watershed. The duplicate and splits were also analyzed at the same

4Laboratory analysis procedures for the parameters used to compute TDS are outlined in Appendix H. 5Analysis procedure for fecal coliform as describeû in Greenberg and others (1995).

laboratories where the original samples were analyzed due to financial limitations.

However, in the spring of 1997 a one time blind comparison was conducted with an

independent laboratory for selected parameters. Results from this blind comparison

were cornpared using a two tailed Students's t-test for paired sarnples. The

equipment used to perform the analysis were calibrated pnor to any analysis. It was

decided by the project coordinator to not keep the laboratory "blind" (unaware of

which duplicate or split was from each site) with respect to the duplicate and split

samples as the laboratories calibrated their equipment before any analysis. The

duplicate and split samples were compared using a two tailed Students's t-test for

paired samples.

A second quality control rneasure was initiated in 1997. Double distilled

water was bottled at the field laboratory in Strathmore and sent with the other

samples to be analyzed by the laboratory in Lethbridge. This double distilled water

"sample" was called a "blank". Maximum concentration of a parameter in the blank

sample was compared with the average concentration for that parameter at al1 sites

throughout the sampling season.

3.4 PROCEDURE FOR MASSLOAD CALCULNIONS

To quantify the impact of various sources the massload of various water

quality parameters over different periods was used in the analysis. The massload

was wmputed in the following manne?. Using linear interpolation between weekly

water sample parameter concentrations daily concentrations were obtained. The

product of these daily concentrations and the daily flow resulted in the daily

parameter massloads. The daily rnassloads for the period of interest were added

to present the massload for the period of interest.

3.5 FLOW, PREClPlTATlON AND LAND USE DATA

The measurement of flow passing by a site provided valuable information

induding runoff delay after precipitation events and mass loading of contaminants.

For al1 the periods of flow, except spring runoff, the flow heights recorded by the

datalogger, in the stilling wells, were calibrated to flow rates for each site by means

of cunent flow meters (Figure 3.6) Model 1205 and 1210 (rnanufactured by

Scientific Instruments, Wisconsin. U.S.A.'). In sprhg ninoff, due tu high water

levels and ice in the stilling wells, the stilling wells were not used to record the water

level. lnstead when a sample was collected the staff gauge reading was recorded.

The flow heights (Le.. staff gauge reading) recorded were calibrated to flow rates

for each site using a Model 3000 Datalogging Current Meter 1 Flowmeter

(manufactured by Swoffer Instruments Inc., Seattle, U.S.A.'). The longer length of

the rod allowed flow to be measured from bridges and temporary log bridges during

spring runoff.

Figure 3.6: Measuring flow uring a curient meter

6Disclaimer: Manufacturer's name is included for reader's information only and does not imply endorsement.

'Disciaimer: Manufachrets name is included for reader's information only and does not imply endorsement.

To gain information on rainfall within the basin, rainfall data using two tipping

bucket rain gauges were recorded. When the tipping bucket rain gauge tipped a

pulse was sent to the datalogger in the stilling well. After an interval of 20 minutes

the accumulated pulses were stored in the datalogger data file. The 20 minute

interval rainfall data were converted to millimeterç (mm) of rainfall and daily rainfall

was computed.

Land use data were gathered to help explain fluctuations of various

parameters and locate potential sources of contamination. Information on the land

use patterns within the Larsen East basin was obtained by field surveys,

interviewing famers and officials within the basin.

4.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Data collected in the 1996 and 1997 sampling seasons were analyzed. The

data on which the analysis was based are presented in tabular f o n in Appendices

0-F. Water quality guidelines against which the parameter levels were compared

are Iisted in Appendix A. Most graphs present time in ternis of Julian days and

Appendix G contains tables of Julian days and the respective dates.

4.1 IMPACT OF IRRIGATION ON CREEK WATER QUALlTY

To determine the impact on creek water quality by discharges of excess

irrigation water (Le. irrigation tailwaters), data from sites 4, 15 and 20 were

analyzed. As irrigation water was supplied from early May to late September data

from these dates were used. As mentioned previously: . site #20 provides information on creek water quality upstream of the

entrance of irrigation tailwaters into the creek;

site #15 is located on an irrigation canal tailwater turnout; and

the impact of irrigation tailwaters on creek water quality (along with

other impacts) was obsewed at site #4.

4.1 .l Flow and Precipitaüon

Using the flow records from 1996 and 1997 it may be stated that during the

irrigation season the major source of water at site #4 (basin outfiow) is from the

irrigation taihnrater at site #15. Figures 4.1 and 4.2 display the flow and precipitation

data for 1996 and 1997 respectively. Using average daily flows it was detemined

that site #15 (irrigation taihnrater) accounted for 55% and 59% of the flow at site #4

for 1996 and 1997 respedively.

- -

Crowfoot Study - Larsen East Basin 1996 Irrigation Season: Flow & Precip

120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 Julian Oay (1 996)

[- Site 4 - Site 15 - Site 20 Rain@5 A ~atn@15)

Figure 4.1 Flow ! Precipitation for 1996

Crowfoot Study - Larsen East Basin 1997 lrrigation Season: Flow 8 Precip.

120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 Julian Day (1 997)

Figure 4.2 Flow I ~reci~itiitionfor 1997

If the three additional tailwaters (descrîbed in section 2.2) were taken into account,

the majority of water leaving the Larsen East basin can be accounted for by

irrigation taihivaters. Therefore, it may be concluded that the irrigation tailwater has

a major impact on creek water quality of the Larsen East basin. Whether the impact

is positive or negative is discussed in following sections.

Since the rnajority of water within the basin is supplied for irrigation purposes,

no clear relationship between precipitation and flow or precipitation magnitude and

flow magnitude could be ascertained. Along with this, precipitation recorded at the

two rain gauges (separated by 1 3 km) frequently varied su bstantially. This indicates

that rainfall patterns within the Larsen East basin are highly variable and more than

two rain gauges are required to gain proper precipitation data. Therefore, in the

analysis, fluctuation of parameters were usually linked to fiow events rather than

precipitation events.

The Larsen East basin received less rainfall in 1997 than in 1996. As

precipitation data are available from July of 1996 only rainfall data from Julian days

235-305 these were used to compare 1996 and 1997 rainfall amounts. Between

Julian days 235-305 at site #5, just outside the Larsen East basin, 54.8 mm and

27.2 mm of rainfall were collected in 1 996 and 1 997 respectively . At site #15, for

the same period, 67.2 mm and 54.6 mm rainfall were recorded in 1996 and 1997,

respectively. During field visits farmers infonned the researcher that they also

considered 1997 a drier year. Site #15 is on an irrigation canal and as 1997

appears to be a drier year, more water would be needed for irrigation. This rnay

explain the higher flow at site #15 in 1997 than 1996 during the irrigation season.

As water flowing past site #15 is discharged into the creek, flow past site #4 is

higher in 1997 than 1996 (Figures 4.1 and 4.2).

4.1.2 Nitrogen

4.1.2.1 Ammonium

Figures 4.3 and 4.4 present the fluctuations of ammonium for 1996 and 1997

respectively. As can be seen in Figure 4.3, the level of ammonium at site #20 nses

after the rain event of Julian day 262. McNeely and others (1979a) found that

ammonia associated with clay minerals enters the aquatic environment through soi1

erosion. There is substantial grazing around site #20 (Figure 4 3 , therefore it is

likely that the cattle cause compaction of the soil reducing infiltration and resulting

in increased runoff and erosion. Robbins (1979) also found high runoff from heavily

grazed watersheds due to compaction of soi1 from cattle's hooves and grazing

practices. In addition, grazing would reduce the plant cover around site #20, further

potentially contributing to runoff and erosion. Erosion after the 1997 spring runoff

is a potential explanation for the high NH, values on Julian days 120-150.

Deposition of contaminants over the fall and winter into irrigation canais rnay

account for the rise in NH, at site #15 (irrigation tailwater) in the early parts of the

1997 irrigation season.

It can be seen in Figures 4.3 and 4.4 that the levels of NH, in 1996 are

almost consistently higher than those observed in 1997 for the latter half of the

irrigation season. As mentioned in the section on flow, there was less rainfall in

1997 than in 1996 for the latter part of the irrigation season. Less rainfall in 1997

would result in less ninoff and thus less erosion. Sharpley and others (1994) state

that during detachment and movement of soi1 in runoff finer sized particles (clays.

colloidal organic matter) are preferentially eroded. Less erosion would explain less

ammonia associated with clay particles entering the aquatic environment, as

mentioned in McNeely and others (1 97Qa), and thus explain lower NH, in 1997 than

in 1996. However, no explanation can be found for the high values of NH, on Julian

day 232 of 1997.

Crowfoot Study - Larsen East Basin 1996 lrrigation Season: NH4

7' az,

&

0

1

120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 Juliu! Day (1996)

[+ Site 4 Site 15 - Site 20 M n @ & ~ain(g)15)

Figure 4.3 1996 Irrigation Season NH,

Crowfoot Study - Larsen East Basin 1 997 lrrigation Season: NH4

120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 Julian Day (1997)

[+ SM0 4 + Site 15 9 Site 20 Rai"@ A RIJRQ~S')

Figure 4.4 1997 Irrigation Season NH,

Figure 4.5 Grazing around site #20

4.1.2.2 mlak Nitrates are highly soluble and thus mobile. Nitrogen as nitrate

concentrations for 1996 and 1997 are presented in Figures 4.6 and 4.7 respectively.

It can be seen in Figure 4.6 that NOIN rose dramatically after a precipitation event

at site #20 on Julian day 262 in 1996. As mentioned previously there is grazing

around site #20. The grazing is expected to have resulted in compaction of the soil.

McNeely and others (1 979b) state that animal waste is a major source of nitrates.

The compaction of the soi1 would reduce infiltration, the preferred pathway of

nitrates according to the literature, and result in nitrates from manure being carried

toward the creek in the runoff due to the precipitation. Thus, the peak of NO,-N on

Julian day 262 in 1996 for site #20 is likely due to runoff from the grazing area

around the site. High values of NO,-N are also observed at site #15 at the

beginning of the inigaüon season of 1997. An explanation of these high values may

be that during the winter and early spring runoff events, wntaminants were

deposited in the unused irrigation canals. If this is the case then at the start of the

1997 irrigation season when water was supplied the canals are being flushed out

resulting in high NO,-N values.

Crowfoot Study - Larsen East Basin 1996 Irrigation Season: N03-N

120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 Julian Day (i 996)

- Site 4 - Site 15 - Sle 20 Raine5 4 Raialn(Pl15

Figure 4.6 1996 Irrigation Season NO,-N

Crowfoot Study - Larsen East Basin 1997 Irrigation Season: N03-N

120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 Julian D y (1 997)

- --

(+ S b 4 + Site 15 9 Site 20 min@ 4 Raina1

Figure 4.7 1997 irrigation Season NO,-N

No explanation of the high NO,N values observed between Julian day 21 3-234 in

1996 could be found. The NO,-N values observed in 1996 and 1997 were similar

to those observed by CCREM (1987) for surface waters (0.00M rngfl). In addition,

the NO3-N values for site #4, #15 and #20 were below the Canadian Environmental

Guideline for d rin king water of 1 0 mglL.

4.1 -2.3 Nitrite

In the 1996 irrigation season no nitrogen as nitrite (NO,-N) was observed at

sites #4. 15 and 20. However, in the 1997 sampling season a sample (on Julian

day 147) from site #15 (irrigation tailwater) was found to contain 0.07 mg/L of NO2-N

(Figure 4.8).

Crowfoot Study - Larsen East Basin 1997 Irrigation Season: N02-N

120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 Julian Day (1997)

f

++ Site4 -c Site 15 +- Site 20 9 Raina5 Raine1 L

Figure 4.8 1997 Irrigation Season NO,-N

No other samples from sites #4, 15 or 20 contained any detectable NO,-N. The

sample, from site #15 in 1997, which was found to contain 0.07 mg/L of NO,-N was

collected during a precipitation event. Levels of NH, and NO,-N rose dramatically

on during this precipitation event also. If the value observed is not due to

experimental error then as mentioned in section 2.3.1.3 the presence of nitrite in

water indicates active biological processes influenced by organic contamination.

The organic contamination may have entered the irrigation canal due to surface

runoff or groundwater discharges due to the rainfall on Julian days 143-146. From

the water quality guidelines summarized in Appendix A it can be seen that the 0.07

mglL of NO,-N at site #15 violates the Canadian Environmental Quality guideline

for freshwater aquatic life.

4.1.2.4

Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN) is a measure of ammonia and organic nitrogen

(McNeely and others 19794). Figures 4.9 and 4.10 illustrate the levels of TKN

observed in 1996 and 1997 respectively. The rise in TKN after the rain event on

Julian days 260-266 at site #20 can be seen in Figure 4.9. As with NO,-N and NH,

a potential explanation for this rise in TKN in the creek is runoff containing organic

N and NH,. Table 4.1 summarises the massload for TKN during the 1996 and 1997

sampling seasons.

Table 4.1 Ammonium accounts for srnaII proportion of N in TKN by mass

Note: Masskads were computed in the following manner. Using linear interpolating be&n

Site

1 TKN (kg) I

weekly water sample TKN and NH, concentrations daily concentrations were obtained. The product of these daiIy concentrations and the daily flow resulted in the daily massload. Massload for the imgation season (Julian days 206-304 and 127-281 for 1996 and 1997 resWvely) were computed using daily massloads.

1996 Irrigation Season

NH, (kg)

1997 Irrigation Season

TKN (kg) NH, (kg)

Crowfoot Study - Larsen East Basin 1996 Irrigation Season: TKN

120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 Julian Day (1 996)

Site 4 - Site 15 - Site 20 Rain@5 Raina15

Figure 4.9 1996 Irrigation Season TKN

Crowfoot Study - Larsen East Basin 1 997 l rrigation Season: TKN

120 140 160 I B O 200 220 240 260 280 Julian Day (1997)

Site 4 -c Site 15 +- Site 20 Raina5 - Raina1

Figure 4.10 1997 Irrigation Season TKN

As can be seen in the table there is a substantial difference between the amount of

TKN and NH,. Thus, as TKN is a rneasure of ammonia and organic nitrogen, the

difference rnust reflect the contribution of organic N. A potential source of the

organic N might be runoff from lands with grazing near the creek. Areas with

grazing with free access (cattle can enter the creek) to the creek are indicated in

Figure 4.1 1.. Another potential source of organic N may be wnoff from fields where

organic fertilizer has been applied.

Figure 4.11 Areas with caffle grcuing with free access to the creek

High values of TKN are also observed at the beginning of the 1997 irrigation season

(Figure 4.1 0). As explained in the section on NH, it is possible that contaminants

are deposited in the irrigation canal which would account for high values observed

at site #15 (on an irrigation canal) at the beginning of the irrigation season when

water is supplied into the irrigation network. Several cattle wintering sites exist

along the creek (Phil Lund, Personal Communications. 1996). Cattle wintering sites

are cornmonly near water bodies like creeks as they provide ready access to water.

As the cattle are confined in srnall areas there is a concentration of solid and liquid

animal waste. The specific locations of such wintering sites were not known. These

wintering sites may explain the high values at sites #4 and #20 from Julian days

120-1 75. Another explanation of the high values from Julian days 120-1 75 at sites

#4 and #20 could be runoff from fields on which organic or commercial fertilizer is

applied. The high values at site #20 can be explained by a fertilizer spill. Early in

1997 a farm truck's fertilizer tank burst spilling fertilizer approxirnately 20 feet from

site #20 (Figure 4.12). Any rainfall would both bring the fertilizer into solution and

cause erosion of soi1 particles to which the fertilizer is attached. Thus, the fertilizer

would enter the creek and be sampled at site #20.

Regardless of the source there was substantial TKN contribution during the

beginning of the 1997 imgation season. McNeely and athers (1 9794) indicate that

the concentration of TKN in rivers which are not influenced by "excessive" organic

inputs ranged from 0.1 to 0.5 mglL. As can be seen in Figure 4.9 and 4.1 0 the TKN

concentration for site #4 (basin oufflow) and site #15 (irrigation tailwater) does not

exceed 0.5 mglL with the exception of the early part of the 1997 irrigation season.

The Alberta Ambient Surface Water Quality Guideline for inorganic and organic N

is 1 .O mg/L and this guideline was exceeded frequently, by up to 600%, in the eariy

part of the 1997 imgation season. No explanation could be found for the high TKN

value at site #20 on Julian day 206 in 1996.

Figure 4.12 Ferülizer spill near site #20

f!&UAs otal Nitro-

The Alberta Ambient Surface Water Quality Guideline for total nitrogen

(inorganic and organic N) is 1 .O mglL. This guideline was only exceeded by the

water from site #4 (basin outflow) and site #15 (irrigation tailwater). This occurred

in the eariy part of the 1997 irrigation season when it is expected that the watershed

is being flushed out. Values as high as 3.67 mglL were recorded at site #4

(Appendix F). Note, TKN was the fonn of N that accounted for most of the total

nlrogen.

4.1.3 Phosphorus

The Alberta Arnbient Surface Water Quality Guideline for phosphonis is 0.1 5

mglL as phosphate or 0.05 mg/L as total phosphorus. Figures 4.13 and 4.14

graphically present the fluctuations of ortho-phosphate while Figures 4.1 5 and 4.16

pertain to total phosphonis for the 1996 and 1997 irrigation seasons respectively.

Crowfoot Study - Larsen East Basin

120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 Julian Day (1 996)

[-- Site 4 - Site 15 - Site 20 Rainm A ~ain@15] - -- - --

~ i ~ u r e 4.1 3 1996 Irrigation Season PO,

Crowfoot Study - Larsen East Basin 1997 Irrigation Season: PO4

120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 Jullan Day (1 997)

Figure 4.14 1997 Irrigation Season PO,

Crowfoot Study Larsen East Basin 1996 Irrigation Season: TP

120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 Julian Day (1 996)

- --

Figure 4.1 5 1996 Irrigation Season TP

Crowfoot Study - Larsen East Basin 1997 Irrigation Season: TP

120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 Julian Dry (1 997)

[+ Site 4 - Site 15 a Site 20 - Raine A ~ a h @ 1 5 )

Figure 4.16 1997 Irrigation Season TP

In the 1996 imgation season (Figure 4.13) the guideline for ortho-phosphate

(PO,) was exceeded on Julian days 262 and 263 in samples from sites #4 and #20

by about 20% and 6% respectively. A nse was also recorded at site #15, dumg the

same period, but the above guideline was not exceeded. These samples were

collected during a runoff generating precipitation event and it is expected that the

runoff carried contaminants into the creek and irrigation canal. For the 1996

irrigation season (Figure 4.1 5) the total phosphorus in the water samples from sites

#4, 15 and 20 almost consistently exceeded the TP guideline. As the PO, in the

water samples was under guideline values the only plausible explanations for the

high TP are 1) a rise in particulate phosphorus; andlor ii) organic phosphorus

contamination. Low TSS levels indicate that particulate phosphorus is not a

problem. Thus, organic contamination must be occurring. Potential sources of

organic pollution may be cattle access to the creek, runoff from grazing areas or

runoff from fields on which organic fertilizer was applied.

In the early part of the 1997 irrigation season (Figures 4.14 and 4:16) for site

#20 both PO, and TP were substantially higher than the guideline values. As

mentioned in the section on Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN) a logical source of the

phosphonis, at site #20, is the fertilizer spill (Figure 4.12). The high values of PO,

and TP observed at site #15 (irrigation tailwater) early in 1997 may be due to the

fiushing out of the irrigation canal network after the spring runoff which rnay have

deposited contaminants in the canals. There is some speculation that high

phosphorus values in the irrigation water may be due to the turnover of

Chestermere Lake which is part of the WID irrigation network. Runoff from grazing

areas (most probably canying manure and decaying cattle feed) around site #20

would also contribute to the phosphorus observed at site #20. Cattle wintering sites

along the creek between site #20 and site #4 are probable sources of PO, and TP

observed in the water at site #4 in the early part of the 1997 imgation season.

Another potential source of P observed at site #4 is runoff from fields on which

commercial or organic fertilizer is applied. Cattle grazing around site #20 may be

the explanation of aie high TP values observed on Julian days 204-239 in 1997.

As the cattle are not fenced off from the creek it is highly possible that cattle enter

the creek to drink water and stir up the sediment causing a dissolution of

phosphorus.

In 1997 on Julian days 146-1 52 a flow event occuned due to heavy rainfall.

This one fiow event accounted for 68% of the irrigation season TP massload at site

#20. The source of the TP was most possibly the fertilizer spill but the fact remains

that runoff and erosion is a serious problem at site #20. A high PO, value is

recorded on Julian day 197 in 1997 at site #f 5. There is no explanation for this high

value. As the TP on the same date does not rise dramatically it is possible that the

high PO, is due to experimental or analyücal error.

4.1.4 Total Dissolved Solids

Low salinity is desired in irrigation water. Total dissolved solids (TDS)

provides an idea of the dissolved substances (i.e. salts) in water. Figures 4.17 and

4.18 present the TDS levels observed in water samples frorn 1996 and 1997

respectively. As can be seen in Figure 4.18 salinity was hig her in May and June

than in the remainder of the year. Similar results were found in a surface water

quality study (Madawaska Consulting, 1996) conducted on the County of

Wheatland, within which the Crowfoot Creek flows. An explanation for the high TDS

levels is that during the early part of the irrigation season the flow in the watershed

is flushing out contaminants accurnulated over the last fall or winter. On the other

hand, it could represent the only time of the year when groundwater seepage is a

major contributor to stream baseflow; being the only time of the year when the water

table is high enough to do so. The Canadian Environmental Quality Guidelines for

drinking water and irrigation with regard to TDS are 500 and 500-3500 mglL

respectively. The drinking water guideline was exceeded only: 1) three times in the

1996 sampling season at site #20 by up to 146%; ii) in the early part of 1997 at sites

#4,15 and 20 by up to 11 1 %, and iii) on Julian day 281 in 1997 at site #4.

Crowfoot Study - Larsen East Basin 1 996 Irrigation Season: TDS

120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 Julian Day (1 996)

Figure 4.17 1996 lrrigation Season TDS

Crowfoot Study - Larsen East Basin 1997 Irrigation Season: TDS

120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 Julian Day (1997)

+ Site 4 -- Site 15 - Site 20 Raina5 r Raina1

Figure 4.18 1997 Irrigation Season TDS

No explanations could be found for the high TDS values on: 1) Julian day 206 in

1996 at site #20; ii) Julian day 246 in 1996 at site #15 and iii) Julian day 281 in 1997

at site #4. The high TDS value on Julian day 246 in 1996 at site #15 is suspect as

on the same sampling date no rise in TDS was observed at site #4 or #20. Along

with this the high TDS value is uncharactedstically high for the TDS values obsewed

at site #15 during most of 1996.

4.1 .5 Total Suspended Solids

Total suspended solids (TSS) is a measure of suspended sediments in a

water body. Figures 4.1 9 and 4.20 present the TSS values for 1996 and 1997

respectively. Due to a precipitation event TSS values rose around Julian day 262

at sites #4 and #20 in 1996. It is suggested that runoff accounted for the rise in

TSS values. For sites #4 (basin oufflow) and site #15 (irrigation tailwater) TSS

values remained below 30 mglL in 1996 and 1997 with the exception of the early

part of the 1997 irrigation season. It is suggested that a high water table led to less

infiltration and subsequently more runoff and erosion during the early part of the

1997 irrigation season resulting in high TSS values. Not al1 TSS fluctuations in the

creek correspond to precipitation events. Cattle grazing directly in the creek at

various locations along the reaches, cause TSS loading which is independent of

rainfall events. The cattle have access to the creek and thus destroy the

streambanks and sür up sedirnent from the creek bottom. In addition, their grazing

along the creek probably results in increased ninoff and erosion. Although 1 is also

possible that the soi1 along the creek near site #20 may be highly susceptible to

erosion and thus natural erosion may be occurring which accounts for the TSS

values.

Crowfoot Study - Larsen East Basin 1 996 l rrigation Season : TSS

--

[+ Sitr 4 - Site 15 - Site 20 Rainas A ~ a i n & l J ) --

Figure 4.1 9 1996 Irrigation Season Total ~ u s ~ e n d e d Solids

Crowfoot Study - Larsen East Basin 1 997 Irrigation Season: TSS

-

Site 4 + Slie 15 a Site 20 Rein@ 4 Raine15 - -

Figure 4.20 1997 Irrigation Season Total Surpended Solids

Soil erosion measurements on srnall upland watersheds (in Ohio) found that most

of the total erosion occurs due to a few large stoms (Edwards and Owens 1991).

The Larsen East basin may not be a "typical" upland watenhed as the majority of

the water leaving the basin is due to irrigation tailwaters, as discussed earlier. Only

in large rainfall events will ninoff overtop the canal bank edges and enter the canal.

Unless there is substantial runoff it is expected that the canal banks will prevent

runoff from entering the canals. Runoff from areas downstream of the irrigation

tailwater may also enter the creek in a rainfall event. Also, in the event of rain it is

highly likely that the famers will stop irrigating, resulting in more irrigation tailwater.

Therefore it is difficult to differentiate the flow in the creek between runoff and

tailwater. Regardless of the source of water, flow events do account for significant

portions of the TSS massload observed, as can be seen in Table 4.2.

Table 4.2: Contribution of flow evenb to irrigation season TSS massload

Site #

4

between w&klV w a k sample TSS concentrations daily cuncentrationswere obtained. ~ h e

20

product of these daily con&ntrations and the daily flow resulted in the daily TSS massload. Dramatic rises in flow were identified using Figures 4.1 and 4.2 as flow events. In 1996 Julian days 246-253 and 161-167 were considered as flow events while in 1997 Julian days 146-1 52 and 161-167 were considered as flow events. The daily massload for these days was summed and expressed as a percentage of the total massload.

1996

56.8%

The Alberta Ambient Surface Water Quality Guideline with regard to TSS is to not

increase the TSS of the water more than 10 mglL above a "background value."

Ideally, a "background valuen would be the natural quality of water untouched by

direct human activity. An example would be the water from a natural forest or

grassland in the upper reaches of a basin. This study's upper sites #15 and #20

were affected by irrigation water, irrigation tailwaters andlor cattle grazing.

1997

43.2%

Note: Massload percentages were computed in the following manner. Using Iinear interpolating 41.3% 38.4%

Therefore no sites provided "backgroundn values and it could not be detenined if

the guideline was met.

4.1.6 Fecal Coliform

Figures 4.21 and 4.22 present the levels of fecal coliform in water samples

in 1996 and 1997 respectively. Fecal coliforrn values for site #20 in 1996 were as

high as 6,100 1 1OOrnL. The most probable explanation of such high values is the

grazing of cattle around site #20. Doran and Linn (1 979) recomrnend fecal coliform

as an indicator of catile activity in a watershed. As the cattle had access to the

creek it is highly probable that there is some defecation occurring in the creek.

Grazing along the creek between site #20 and site #4 rnay account for the fecal

coliform entering the water after the irrigation taihnrater. As can be seen in Figure

4.21 the fecal colifom of irrigation tailwater, at site #15, is below the irrigation water

guideline of 100/100mL except after a major precipitation event in 1996 on Julian

dayç 260-266. The high levels of fecal coliforrn on Julian day 262 in 1996 at site #4

and #15 indicate that runoff carrying fecal coliform is entering the irrigation canal

and the creek downstream of the irrigation discharge. Runoff carrying fecal colifomi

entering the irrigation canal is of concern as the levels of fecal coliform exceed, by

about 190%, the Canadian Environmental Quality Guideline for irrigation water of

10011 00mL. As the primary purpose of the irrigation water is to inigate the violation

of the irrigation guideline is a concem.

Early in 1997 (Figure 4.22) high values of fecal colifom were observed at all

sites, it is expected that the high values are due to the flushing out of the watershed

in the early part of the 1997 irrigation season. In 1997 the fecal coliforni values are

highly variable. Howell and others (1 995) comment fecal bacteria concentration

can Vary with time at any given site.

Crowfoot Study - Larsen East Basin 1996 Irrigation Season: F.Coliform

120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 Julian Day (1 996)

[+ Site 4 - site 15 - Site 20 - Raln@5 4 ~a in@l5)

Figure 4.21 1996 Irrigation Season Fecal Coliform

Crowfoot Study = Larsen East Basin 1 997 Irrigation Season: F.Coliform

120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 Julian Day (1 997)

Figure 4.22 1997 Irrigation Season Fecal ~olifonn

Surprisingly in 1 997 (Figure 4.22) high values of fecal coliform at site #15 (imgation

tailwater) frequently exceeded the irrigation water quality guideline by up to 350%.

The high levels of fecal colifomi did not consistently occur after precipitation events

implying that besides runoff there are other sources of fecal coliform upstream of

site #15. As in 1996 similar high fecal coliform values were obsewed in 1997 at

sites #4 and #20 after rain events. The most probable source of the fecal colifonn

is the grazing along the creek with accesç to the creek.

4.1.7 SUMMARY: IRRIGATION TAILWATER IMPACTS ON CREEK WATER

QUALITY

From the flow records of sites #4 (basin outfiow) and #15 (irrigation tailwater)

it may be concluded that the irrigation tailwater at site #15 accounted for 55% and

59% of the flow leaving the basin in 1996 and 1997 respectively. There are three

other tailwater spill points located between the discharge from site #15 and the

basin outilow at site #4. It is expected that if these were taken into consideration

irrigation tailwaters would account for almost al1 the water leaving the basin during

the irrigation season. As such the irrigation tailwaters play a major role in the water

quality of the Crowfoot Creek in the Larsen East basin.

The Alberta Ambient Surface Water Quality guideline for total inorganic and

organic nitrogen is 1 .O mglL. In the sampling during the 1996 irrigation season, this

guideline was met by water at sites #4 and #15. Similarly, in 1997 with the

exception of the early part of the irrigation season water from sites #4, #15 and #20

did not exceed the guideline. Organic nitrogen was the primary form of nitrogen

found in the water samples for both the 1996 and 1997 irrigation season.

Sampfing during a precipitation event producing runoff in 1996 between

Julian days 260-266 found that water from sites #4 (basin outfiow) and #20

(upstream of irrigation tailwater) exceeded the Alberta Ambient Surface Water

Quaiii Guideline for phosphorus as phosphate by 20% and 6% respectively. It is

expected that runoff from surrounding areas is the major source of contaminants.

The phosphorus as phosphate guideline can be expressed as 0.05 mgI l of total

phosphonis. The total phosphorus values were frequently above 0.05 mglL for al1

sites in 1996 and 1997. It is suggested that organic phosphorus contamination

resulted in the guideline for total phosphonis being exceeded. Possible sources of

organic pollution may have been cattle access to the creek, runoff from grazing

areas or runoff from fields on which organic fertilizer was applied.

The total dissolved solids values were higher in May and June than in the

remainder of the irrigation season. Two explanations are possible: 1) spring flows

flushed contaminants which have accumulated in late fall and winter and ii) May and

June may be the only time of the year when groundwater seepage, typically high in

salts, is a major contributor to stream baseflow.

Samples collected during a runoff producing precipitation event, in 1996, at

sites #4 and #20 displayed high TSS values. It is expected that runoff accounted

for the rise in TSS values. At sites #4 (basin oufflow) and #15, TSS values were

below 30 mg/L in 1996 and 1997 with the exception of the early part of the 1997

irrigation season. An explanation for this rnay be that a high water table led to less

infiltration and subsequently more runoff and erosion. Not al1 TSS fluctuations at

#20 correspond to precipitation events. It is possible that cattle grazing around site

#20 causes erosion and streambank failure. A significant portion of the TSS

massload in both the years occurred during periods cf high precipitation.

In 1996 the irrigation tailwater (site #15) exceeded by about 190% the

irrigation guideline with regard to fecal coliform only once, which was after a

precipitation event producing runoff. However, in 1997 the irrigation guideline for

fecal colifom was exceeded frequently by up to 350%. The high levels of fecal

colifom did not consistently occur after precipitation events which would indicate

that besides runoff there are significant sources of fecal coliform upstream of site

#15 on the irrigation canal. Despite the imgation taihater (site #15) accounting for

over half the flow at the basin outilow (site #4) the levels of fecal colifonn at site #4

were frequently above those at site #15. Grazing along the creek upstream of site

#4 is a potential source of fecal coliform. There is grazing around site #20 which

Iikely accounts for the high fecal coliforni values at this site. In the early part of the

1997 irrigation season several high values for NH,, NQ-N, TKN, PO,, TP, TDS and

TSS were observed at site #i 5 (on irrigation canal prior to irrigation tailwatet). It is

likely that over the fall, winter and spring runoff contaminants were deposited into

the irrigation canals. In the early part of the 1997 irrigation season these

contaminants were being fiushed out by the irrigation water leading to high

parameter values at site #15.

Grazing of cattle occurs along the length of the creek. Several studies have

found that grau'ng along water bodies such as creeks and rivers lead to

contamination indicated by such parameters as nitrogen, phosphorus and fecal

coliform bacteria (McNeely and others 1979b, Sharpley and others 1994, Sutton

1990 in Greenlee and Lund 1995, Kirchmann 1994, Tiedemann and others 1988).

Grazing caused compaction of soi1 resulting in high runoff (Robbins 1979, in Cross

and Cooke 1996). This runoff rnay cause erosion and carry animal waste into the

creek. Animal wastes have been found to contain nitrogen, phosphorus and fecal

coliform bacteria (Sharpley and others 1994, McNeely and others 1979b, Clernm

1977). Cattle also wintered near the creek but the exact locations of such

operations is not known. Such wintering sites would also be sources of

contaminants.

In the early part of the 1997 irrigation season a f am truck's fertilizer tank

burst spilling fertilizer approxirnately 20 feet from site #20. It is expected that this

may account for high nitrogen and phosphorus values at this site throughout the

1997 irrigation season at site #20.

4.2 SEWAGE LAGOON EFFLUENT IMPACTS ON CREEK WATER QUALITY

The village of Standard treats its municipal wastewater in a sewage lagoon.

Effluent from the lagoon is released once a year in the fall, over a 4-6 day period.

Site #26 is located at the sewage lagoon discharge point. The effluent then flows

past site #2 (located 500 m downstream) and into the Ducks Unlimited reservoirs.

Except du ring spring runoff. or du ring runoff producing precipitation events, the

creek at site #2 is stagnant. Also, only during spring ninoff is there flow from the

reservoirs. That is. site #3 nomally records no flow during the summer.

Flows and mass loads of individual parameters were examined at sites #26,

2, #3 and #4. Because individual foms of nitrogen (Le. NH,, NO,-N, NO,N, TKN)

and phosphorus (Le. PO,, TP) can alter with time, only TP and TN can be used

when making cornparisons between monitoring sites.

For computation of the mass load at site #26 the Row from site #2 was used.

This was deemed acceptable for three reasons: 1) there was no flow before the

lagoon discharge at site #2 and thus any flow was a result of the lagoon discharge;

ii) there were no sources of water entering the creek between site #26 and #2; and

iii) there was no precipitation during the lagoon discharge which would have caused

ru noff.

It was assumed that the "lagoon effluent discharge-Duck Unlirnited

resewoirs" system had achieved steady state condition. The weirs, for the

reservoirs, were built in 1980 and the Standard sewage lagoon has been operating

since 1978. During the first years of operation one could expect a "build-up" of

contaminants in the reservoir bed. Now, after 16 years of operation, one could

expect that such sinks will be full and the system as a whole is in a steady state.

4.2.1 FLOW

Figures 4.23 and 4.24 present the flow observed at site #2 dumg the lagoon I

1 Crowfoot Study - Larsen East Basin I I 1996 Lagoon Discharge Flow Data

10îî1196 1 0122/96 10123i96 1 0124196 1 Of25196 Date (q 996)

1 -* Site #2 - datalogger 1 '. 4

Figure 4.23 1996 Lagoon Discharge Flow Data

- - -- - -- -

i Crowfoot Study - Larsen East Basin I 1

I I 1997 Lagoon Discharge Flow Data

/ + Site #2 - datalogger - Site #2 - flow metering 1 Figure 4.24 1997 Lagoon Discharge Flow Data

66

effluent discharge. The sewage lagoon accounts for essentially al1 the flow at site

#2 during the lagoon discharge. The outlet structure from the lagoon is a pipe with

a control valve. No flow data was obtained for Julian day 300 in 1997 due to

equipment failure. The flow during the 1997 lagoon discharge differs drarnatically

from the flow in 1996. As the effluent in both years leaves the lagoon through a

pipe the flow should be similar in 1996 and 1997. It is possible that the 1997 flow

data is inaccurate as the datalogger recorded unsubstantiated voltage fluctuations.

Extensive rnanual flow metering was conducted dunng the 1996 lagoon discharge.

The 1996 discharge data are considered more reliable than the 1997 discharge

data. Using the results of flow meterings at site #2 during the 1997 lagoon

discharge an approximate hydrograph can be drawn (Figure 4.24). The volume of

the lagoon discharge using this approximate hydrograph is the same order of

magnitude as the lagoon discharge in 1996. Therefore, this approximate

hydrograph is used in the following analysis.

4.2.2 Nitrogen

4 a Total Nitroaen

Figures 4.25 and 4.26 present the levels of total nitrogen in the effluent from

the Standard sewage lagoon for 1996 and 1997 respectively. The levels of total

nitrogen for both years are of the similar order of magnitude. As will be seen below

the various components of total nitrogen (NH,, NO& NO3-N, TKN) differed greatly.

In 1996 NH, levels were an order of magnitude lower than those in 1997. Levels

of TKN in 1997 were higher than those in 1996 while levels of NO,-N dropped in

1997. The distribution of nitrogen between its various forms (NH,, NO,-N, NO,-N,

TKN etc.) depends on various factors (e.g. temperature, aquatic life).

The figures show that the sewage effluent flow causes a rise in total nitrogen

of the creek at site #2. The contribution of the 1996 lagoon effluent on the total

nitrogen in water leaving the Larsen East basin is summarised in Figure 4.27.

Contribution of the lagoon effluent is minimal (1.97%) with regard to total nitrogen

of water leaving the basin.

Crowfoot Study - Larsen East Basin 1996 Lagoon Discharge: Total N

290 292 294 296 290 300 Julian Day

( -b Site 26 - Site 2 - Flow@2 ] Figure 4.25 1996 Lagoon Enluent TN

Crowfoot Study - Larsen East Basin 1997 Lagoon Discharge: Total Nitrogen

301 302 303 304 Julian Day

- Site 26 + Site 2 - F loww

Figure 4.26 1997 Lagoon Effluent TN

68

Crowfoot Study - Larsen East basin 1 996 Lagoon Discharge TotN Massload

Figure 4.27 1996 Lagoon discharge contribution to 1997 Spring Runoff Total Nitrogen massload

Significant other sources of nitrogen exist within the Larsen East basin. Other

sources of nitrogen within the Larsen East basin may have been: 1) fall application

of organic or inorganic fertilizer; ii) cattle wintering sites near the creek and iii)

animal waste from cattle grazing close to or even in the creek.

4- monium

Pommen (1983, in CCREM 1987) states that ammonia is often found in

municipal wastewater discharges. Figures 4.28 and 4.29 present the levels of NH,

in the lagoon effluent. Concentrations of NH, in 1996 and 1997 are different by an

order of magnitude. The levels of NH, at site #2 are lower than those at site #26.

This decrease may be due to conversion of ammonium to other foms of nitrogen

or absorption of NH, by aquatic life between sites #26 and M.

Crowfoot Study - Larsen East Basin 1996 Lagoon Discharge: NH4

292 294 296 298 300 Julian Day

[ - Site 26 + Site 2 - Flow@ 1 Figure 4.28 1996 Lagoon Effluent NH,

Crowfoot Study - Larsen East Basin 1997 Lagoon Discharge: NH4

302 Julian Day

[ ++ Site 26 + Site 2 - Aow@2 1 Figure 4.29 1997 Lagoon Effluent NH,

4.2.2.3 Nitrate

The levels of NO,-N in the 1996 and 1997 lagoon effluent can be seen in

Figures 4.30 and 4.31.

~wfoot Study - Larsen East Basin 1996 Lagoon Discharge: N03-N

290 292 294 296 298 300 Julian Day

(- site 26 + Site 2 - ~ l o w @ 2 )

Figure 4.30 1996 Lagoon Effluent NOGN

Crowfoot Study - Larsen East Basin 1997 Lagoon Discharge: N03-N

' 1 1 Os*

302 Julian Day

Figure 4.31 1997 Lagoon Effluent NO,-N

71

USEPA (1 976, in CCREM 1 987) found that municipal wastewaters are significant

anthropogenic point sources of nitrates. One c m see that there is a tirne lag and/or

absorption factor involved. High N03-N levels from the lagoon discharge point (site

#26) does not initially impact creek water quality at site #2. Levels of NO,-N in 1996

and 1997 were different but of the same order of magnitude. It is expected that the

nitrogen was in other fonns of nitrogen.

4.2.2.4 mk McNeely and others (1 979c) state that municipal sewage plant discharges

may contain nitrites. Nitrites were found in the effluent from Standard's sewage

lagoon (Appendices E and F). The Canadian Environmental Quality guideline for

freshwater aquatic life of 0.01 9 mglL was exceeded only once. On Julian day 297

in 1996 NO,-N rose to 0.84 mglL in the lagoon effluent. Nitrites are considered toxic

to humans (Health Canada 1996) but, it is expected that the nitrites will oxidize to

nitrates in the reservoirs. However. the resulting nitrates might contribute to some

eutrophication of the Ducks Unlimited reservoirs.

4?2.2.5 eldahl Nitroaw

The levels of TKN in the 1996 and 1997 lagoon effluent can be seen in

Figures 4.32 and 4.33 respectively. It is worth noting that the TKN levels are

substantially higher than NH, levels (Figures 4.28 and 4.29). This is expected as

TKN is a measure of ammonia and organic N, and municipal sewage contains

organic material. Prince and others (1993) found that the average concentration of

TKN in effluent from 4s-2L sewage lagoons (same configuration as Standard's

sewage lagoon) was 5.3 mglL. As can be seen in Figures 4.32 and 4.33 the

effiuent from Standard's sewage lagoon has similar TKN concentrations.

Crowfoot Study - Larsen East Basin 1996 Lagoon Discharge: TKN

290 292 294 296 298 300 Julian Day

[ - Site 26 + Site 2 - ~low@2] - - - - -- -

Figure 4.32 1996 Lagoon Effluent 1 KN

Crowfoot Study - Larsen East Basin 1997 Lagoon Discharge: TKN

302 Julian Day

Figure 4.33 1997 Lagoon Effluent TKN

4.2.3 Phosphorus

Figures 4.34 and 4.35 present the levels of PO4 in the 1996 and 1997 lagoon

discharges respectively. Total phosphorus levels are presented in Figures 4.36 and

4.37 for the 1996 and 1997 lagoon discharges. Phosphorus levels are slightly

higher in the 1997 lagoon discharge than the 1996 lagoon discharge but the

phosphorus values are of similar orders of magnitude. As with nitrogen, there is a

tirne lag between the lagoon effluent and the concentration at site #2 rising. lt is

likely that during this time aquatic life between site #26 and #2 were absorbing the

phosphorus and/or the phosphorus was being bound with sediment in the

streambed. It can also be seen that the TP primarily consists of PO, in the 1996

and 1997 lagoon discharge. This is expected as the source of the phosphorus is

the lagoon effluent and not erosion. If it were erosion then there would be a large

discrepancy between TP and PO, indicating particulate phosphorus due to erosion.

As with total nitrogen it can be seen in Figure 4.38 that the lagoon effluent

accounts for a minor part (8.86%) of the TP massload leaving the basin in the

spring ninoff. There is more TP by mass at site #3 than that at site #4 for the 1997

spring runoff. It is expected that this is due to degradation of phosphorus in the

aquatic system and/or binding of phosphorus with sediment.

Crowfoot Study - Larsen East Basin 1996 Lagoon Discharge: PO4

i

O ' \ l - 0 290 292 294 296 298 300

Julian Day

1 Site 26 + Site 2 - Flwv@2)

Figure 4.34 1996 Lagoon Effluent PO,

Crowfoot Study - Larsen East Basin 1997 Lagoon Discharge: PO4

O J l

300 302 304 Julian Day

1 - Site 26 + Site 2 - Flow@2 )

Figure 4.35 1997 Lagoon Effluent PO,

Crowfoot Study - Larsen East Basin 1996 Lagoon Discharge: TP

290 292 294 296 298 300 Julian Day

( - Site 26 +,- Site 2 - Flow@Z)

Figure 4.36 1996 Lagoon Effluent TP

-

Crowfoot Study - Larsen East Basin 1997 Lagoon Discharge:TP

[ - Site 26 + Site 2 - Flow@ )

302 Julian Day

Figure 4.37 1997 Lagoon Effluent TP

Crowfoot Study - Larsen East basin 1996 Lagoon Discharge TP Massload

26 2 3 4 Site

Figure 4.38 1996 Lagoon Discharge contribution to 1997 Spring Runoff Total Phosphorus massload

4.2.4 Total Dissolved Solids

As can be seen in Figure 4.39 and 4.40 the lagoon effluent is low in TDS

compared to the creek water at site #2 before the effluent discharge. Thus, the

sewage lagoon effluent dilutes the creek water. This actually improves creek water.

Similar to the other parameters discussed, the iagoon effluent does not contribute

the majority of the TDS mass leaving the basin (Figure 4.41) as 1 accounts for only

13.06% of TDS leaving the basin during spring ninoff. The amount of TDS, by

mass, during the 1997 spring ~ n o f f passing site #3 was 40% more than that

observed at site #4. No explanation could be found for this reduction in TDS

massload.

Crowfoot Study - Larsen East Basin 1996 Lagoon Discharge: TDS

6000 ;

1000 ' /' - 0 290 292 294 296 298 300

Julian Day

- - r- i --- Site 26 -+ Site 2 - FIOW@]

Figure 4.39 1996 Lagoon ~ f f l u e n t ~ b ~

--

Crowfoot Study - Larsen East Basin 1997 Lagoon Discharge:TDS

302 Julian Day

1 - site 26 + Site 2 - flow@2 1 Figure 4.40 1997 Lagoon €muent TDS

Crowfoot Study - Larsen East basin 1996 Lagoon Discharge TDS Massload

- 26 2 3 4

Site

-- - -

Figure 4.41 1996 Lagoon Discharge contribution to 1997 Spring Runoff TDS massload

S~ring Rqnoff Lagoon

4.2.5 Total Suspended Solids

C

One of the functions of a sewage lagoon is to settle out the solids, therefore

it cornes as no surprise that the sewage lagoon effluent is low with regard to TSS.

Prince and others (1 993) found that the average concentration of TSS in effluent

from sewage lagoons similar to Standard's was 20.4 rnglL. As can be seen in

Figures 4.42 and 4.43 the TSS concentrations in the effluent ranged from 1.2 to

24.6 mg/L, with one exception. On Julian day 303 in 1997, the TSS value for the

sewage lagoon effiuent rose to 162 mgR. It is suggested that as this occurred near

the end of the effluent release there may have been some scouring along the

bottom of the lagoon resulting in this high TSS value.

* Dischargr *

I 1

Froni R S ~ ok 6 a s Z

Crowfoat Study - Larsen East Basin 1996 Lagoon Discharge: TSS

50 O

290 292 294 296 298 300 Julian Day

; - Site 26 +- Site 2 - ~ l o w @ 2 ]

Figure 4.42 1996 Lagoon Effluent TSS

--

Crowfoot Study - Larsen East Basin

302 Julian Day

- site 26 4- Site 2 - ~ l o w @ )

Figure 4.43 1997 Lagoon Effluent TSS

The TSS massload (Figure 4.44) for the 1996 lagoon discharge is minimal (0.05%)

when compared with that at the basin oufflow (site #4) during the 1997 spring runoff.

Note that the 1996 lagoon effluent is stored in the Duck Unlimited reservoirs until

the 1997 spring runoff event.

Crowfoot Study - Larsen East basin 1996 Lagoon Discharge TSS Massload

26 2 3 4 Site

Figure 4.44 1996 Lagoon Discharge contribution to 1997 Spring Runoff TSS massload

4.2.6 Fecal Colifonn

The fecal coliform levels in the lagoon discharge (Figure 4.45 and 4.46) are

low (mean = 24, standard deviation = 23). They violate the drinking water guideline

of O/lOOmL but do not violate the irrigation guideline of 1001100mL. When

compared with sampling at sites #4, #15 and #20 (rnean = 490, standard deviation

= 860) during the 1996 and 1997 irrigation seasons (Figures 4.21 and 4.22

respectively) the lagoon discharges were substantially lower in fecal colifom.

Therefore, it may be stated that the sewage lagoon effluent is not a major source

of fecal coliform in the Larsen East basin.

Crowfoot Study - Larsen East Basin 1996 Lagoon Discharge: F.Coliform

290 292 294 296 298 300 Julian Day

1 +- Site 26 -c Site 2 - Flow@ 1 Figure 4.45 1996 Lagoon Effluent Fecal Colifonn

Crowfoot Study - Larsen East Basin

302 Julian Day

( - site 26 + site 2 - FIOWQD~ j Figure 4.46 1997 Lagoon Effluent Fecal Coliforni

4.2.7 SUMMARY: IMPACT OF SEWAGE LAGOON EFFLUENT ON WATER

QUALITY OF CROWFOOT CREEK

The village of Standard treats its municipal wastewater in a sewage lagoon.

Effluent from the lagoon is released in the late fall of each year into the creek about

3 km upstream of the Ducks Unlimited reservoirs. These reservoirs only experience

outflow in the sprÏng, thus the municipal effluent "winter" in the reservoirs. Analysis

was based on !) the lagoon discharges in 1996 and 1997 ; and ii) flow downstream

of the reservoirs (site #3) and the basin oufflow (site #4) in the 1997 spring runoff.

Levels of NH,, NO,-N and TKN at Site #2, located 1 km downstream of the

sewage lagoon outflow (site #26). are low for the first day of the effluent discharge

and then the levels rise dramatically. It is likely that the levels are low initially due

to 1) adsorption of nutrients by aquatic life between sites #26 and #2 andlor ii)

conversion to other forms of nitrogen. Presence of nitrogen as nitrite was detected

in the effiuent. The concentration of nitrogen as nitrite exceeded the Canadian

Environmental Quality guideline for freshwater aquatic life by about 4300%. Nitrites

are considered toxic to humans. The predominant fom of nitrogen was organic

nitrogen as anticipated since municipal sewage is organic waste.

As with nitrogen the concentration of ortho-phosphate and total phosphorus

are low the first h o days of the effluent discharge, after which time the

concentrations rose. It is likely that there is adsorption of phosphorus during the

initial two days. The total phosphorus primarily consisted of dissolved phosphorus

ions from the effluent rather than erosion.

Total suspended solids values in the 1996 and 1997 lagoon effiuent were

less than 25 mglL with one exception. The levels of total dissolved solids of the

lagoon effiuent (site #26) were substantially lower than those in the creek water at

site #2. As a result the effluent actually dilutes these contaminants in the creek

water at site #2 and improves the creek water quality with respect to these

parameters.

Fecal coliform values of the lagoon effluent are lower than those observed

at sites #4, #15 and #20 during the 1996 and 1997 irrigation seasons. It may be

stated, therefore, that the sewage lagoon effluent is not a major source of fecal

coliforrn in the Larsen East basin.

Contribution of the sewage lagoon to massload of total nitrogen, total

phosphorus, total dissolved solids and total suspended solids leaving the basin in

the spring runoff at site #4 were 1.97%, 8.86%, 1 3.06% and 0.05% respectively.

These percentages indicate that the lagoon effluent does not account for the

majority of the total nitrogen, total phosphorus, total dissolved solids and total

suspended solids contamination within the Larsen East basin during spring ninoff.

The arnount of sewage lagoon effluent, in ternis of water volume, is substantially

less than the fiow during spring runoff. This low water volume resulted in the low

massload from the sewage lagoon when compared with spring runoff.

4.3 QUALITY CONTROL

To check the reliability of the water quality data two quality control measures

were undertaken. It was decided to conduct a two tailed Student's t-test for paired

samples to determine the difference in the means of the original sample and the

duplicates/splits. The t-test was carried out using Quattro Pro 7's @test function.

The raw data and results can be found in Appendix 6 and Table 4.3 below

summarizes the results. As can be seen in Table 4.3 al1 duplicates/splits (except

TP in 1996) were 95% significant (i.e..t-test values above 0.05). On the basis of

these results it c m be said that the laboratory was able to replicate results for the

same water sample. The only weakness in the procedure was that the laboratory

was aware which samples were duplicateslsplits. The laboratory that analysed the

samples is a provincial laboratory that calibrates its equipment. However, for future

sarnpling it is recommended that the laboratory be kept "blind" to the

duplicateslsplits. The results of a one time blind cornparison with an independent

laboratory were compared using a M o tailed Student t-test for paired samples.

Results of the t-test for NO34 and TP were 0.95 and 0.046 respectively. The low

significance (~0.95%) for TP is of concern.

Table 4.3 Resulb of t-test on the Duplicates and Splits

Parameter

returned an error. Note#2: There were insufficient duplicates of coliform samples in 1996 to

perform a t-test.

As mentioned in the methodology section double distilled water was filled into

a sample bottle in the field laboratory at Strathmore and sent for analysis along with

the other samples. Such a sample was called a "blank". These sarnples were used

as a further check on the laboratones analysis methods along with experimental

error in pouring off samples at the field laboratory in Strathmore. Table 4.4 presents

the cornparison between the maximum concentration for parameters in the blanks

with the average concentration for the same parameters from sites 2, 3,4, 15, 20

and 26 for 1996 and 1997. As can be seen in Table 4.4 the concentration of the

blank maximum value for various parameters is below the average concentration

of the field samples. The only exception was the blank N02-N values whose

maximum concentration was 0.05 mgIL while the average of the field samples in

1997 was 0.02 mg/L. This comparison of blank maximums to field averages was

conducted to determine the worst case scenario. Despite this, the detection of

parameters in the blanks (double distilled water) is of concem. It would be of

interest to isolate at what stage in the process the double distilled water or the

measuring equipment becomes contaminated.

Table 4.4 Cornparison of Blanks and Other Samples

% of Blank

sample with non-

zero conc.

Avg. of Blank

Samples

Max. in Blank

Samples

Avg. for 1996 Field

Samples

Avg. for 1997 Field

Sam~les

TKN NH, T0t.N PO, TP mglL mglL mglL mglL mglL

5.0 CONCLUSIONS

5.1 SUMLHARY OF PROJECT

Crowfoot Creek is a tributary of the Bow River, a major river in the Canadian

province of Alberta. Various studies have found the reach of the Bow River. where

the Crowfoot Creek discharges, polluted with respect to nutrients and colifom

bacteria (Bow River Water Quality Task Force 1991, Madawaska Consulting 1995).

The Irrigation Branch of Alberta Agriculture, Food and Rural Development began

an indepth water quality study of the Crowfoot Creek watershed in 1996. McGill

University was a partner in the study and part of its contribution to the study is this thesis focussing on the Larsen East basin of the Crowfoot Creek watershed. The

objectives of the thesis were to: . determine the impact on creek water quality by irrigation tailwaters; O ascertain the effect of discharging effluent from the Village of

Standard's sewage lagoon on creek water quality; O propose explanations for the fluctuations in: nitrogen as nitrite,

nitrogen as nitrate, ammonium, total Kjeldahl nitrogen, total nitrogen,

dissolved phosphate, total phosphorus, total dissolved solids, total

suspended solids and fecal colifom; and . identify sources of contamination with regard to the parameters of

interest.

Water quality, precipitation and flow data were collected from Jul.-Oct. 1996

and Feb.-Oct. 1997. Data from JuL-Sept. 1996 and May-Sept. 1997 were used to

study the impacts by the irrigation tailwater at site #15 on creek water leaving the

basin at site #M. Data from the lagoon discharge, in Oct. 1996, 0ct.- Nov. 1997,

along with spring runoff data, Feb. - Apr. 1997, were analysed to detemine the

efFect of effluent from the Village of Standard's sewage lagoon on creek water

quality.

5.2 CONCLUSIONS ON IRRIGATION TAILWATER IMPACTS ON CREEK

WATER QUALlTY

From the 1996 and 1997 irrigation season Row records, it was apparent that

the irrigation tailwater at site #15 accounted for more than 55% of the water leaving

the Larsen East basin. Therefore, irrigation tailwater may impact creek water quality

in the basin.

In the eariy part of the 1997 irrigation season several high values for various

parameters were observed at the irrigation tailwater site (site #15). It is suggested

that over the fall, winter and spring runoff contarninants were deposited into the

irrigation canals. In the early part of an irrigation season these contaminants are

being fiushed out by the irrigation water, thus leading to high parameter values in

the tailwater.

The levels of total nitrogen in the irrigation tailwater and the basin outflow

were both below the Alberta Ambient Surface Water Quality guideline except for the

early part of the 1997 irrigation season. Total nitrogen contamination is not an issue

wlhin the Larsen East basin. In 1996 dissolved phosphate values of the irrigation

tailwater rose during a precipitation event. Furthemore, there was substantial

additional phosphate at the basin outFiow from other sources. Phosphate content

is usually the result of ambient soi1 erosion. However, in 1997 the phosphorus as

phosphate values of the basin outfiow was essentially the same as the irrigation

tailwater. This indicates that a substantial amount of the phosphate contamination

came from the irrigation tailwater. The Alberta Ambient Surface Water Quality

guideline for total phosphonis was exceeded almost consistently by the irrigation

tailwater and the basin oufflow. Potential sources of organic pollution rnay have be

cattle access to the creek, runoff from grazing areas or ninoff from fields on which

organic fertilizer was applied.

The values of total dissolved solids in the irrigation tailwater and the basin

outfiow were not above the Canadian Environmental Quality goidelines except in

the eady part of the 1997 imgation season. Potential causes of the high values are:

1) flushing out of contaminants deposited during fall, winter and spring runoff into the

irrigation canals; andior ii) groundwater seepage into the creek and irrigation canals.

As the intended use of this water is irrigation, the exceeding of the irrigation

guideline in the early part of the 1997 irrigation season is of concern.

Levels of total suspended solids (TSS) were quite low for both the basin

oufflow and irrigation outflow in 1996. With the exception of the early part of the

1997 irrigation season, the TSS values at the basin outfiow and the irrigation

tailwater were also low. In the earlier part of the 1997 irrigation season the high

levels of TSS in the irrigation tailwater indicate that: 1) erosion is occurring in the

irrigation canals; iii) irrigation canal banks are being eroded; and/or iii) runoff from

eroded areas is entering the irrigation canal. Grazing in areas upstream of the

basin outfiow but downstream of the irrigation tailwater is expected to contribute to

runoff and erosion raising TSS values at the basin oufflow.

In 1996 high fecal coliform levels in the irrigation tailwater did not occur

except after a runoff producing precipitation event. In 1997, however, frequent high

ievels of fecal colifon were obsewed at the irrigation taihnrater suggesting

contamination sources upstream. Levels of fecal coliform at the basin outflow were

substantially higher than those at the irrigation tailwater suggesting contamination

sources downstream of the tailwater, but upstream of the basin oufflow. A probable

source is cattle grazing with access to the creek upstream of the basin outfiow.

There is substantial grazing along the creek with cattle having access to the

creek. It is likely that this grazing causes compaction d the soi1 and reduces plant

cover, especially ripadan vegetation, leading to conditions susceptible to erosion.

In the early part of the 1997 irrigation season a farm truck's fertilizer tank burst

spilling fertilizer near the creek upstream of the irrigation tailwater discharge. As the

flow at that point in the creek is insignificant the impact on the nitrogen and

phosphorus values at the basin outfiow is considered to be small but peaks were

noted at site #20 following larger rainfall events.

5.3 CONCLUSIONS ON IMPACT OF SEWAGE LAGOON EFFLUENT ON

WATER QUALITY OF CROWFOOT CREEK

The levels of total nitrogen and total phosphorus of the lagoon effluent

exceed Alberta Ambient Surface Water Quality guidelines by about 420% and

8400% respectively. As there are no water users between the lagoon and the

Ducks Unlimited reservoin, where the effluent is stored over the winter, the risk to

human health is considered minimal. It is expected that some nitrogen and

p hosp horus is adsorbed by the aquatic life between the lagoon and the reservoirs.

Effluent from the lagoon is quite low in total dissolved solids and total

suspended solids. As a result. the lagoon effluent dilutes the water in the creek

improving the creek water quality with regard to total dissolved solids. The total

suspended solids concentration in the lagoon effiuent was lower than the average

for effluent from similar lagoons.

Similarly, fecal coliform values were low in the lagoon effluent, ranging from

5-56 counts/100mL. As creek and irrigation water frequently exceeded the irrigation

guideline of 10011 00mL for fecal coliform the sewage lagoon effluent is not a major

source of fecal coliform contamination within the Larsen East basin.

Using daily water quality values and daily fiow massloads of various

parameters were computed for: 1) the lagoon effluent; and ii) spring runoff

immediately downstream of the reservoirs and at the basin outfiow. It was found

that the contribution of the lagoon effluent to total nitrogen, total phosphorus, total

dissolved solids and total suspended solids leaving the basin during spring runoff

were 1.97%, 8.86%, 13.06% and 0.05%. Therefore, it may be stated that the

contribution by the lagoon was minimal to insignificant. Substantial other sources

of contamination exist within the Larsen East basin. Caffle wintenng sites, with a

high density of cattle and as a result animal waste, are considered a likely source

of contamination. Along with this, it is likely that spring runoff flushes accumulated

contaminants out of the basin.

6.0 RECOMMENDATIONS

Based on the findings of this study some recommendations c m be made on

future work and reductions of contamination irnpacting creek water quality within the

Larsen East basin. These recommendations are:

1. Organic nitrogen is the prirnary form of nitrogen found in the water of

the Larsen East basin. Aithough nitrogen contamination is not a

problem for the latter half of the irrigation season it may be beneficial

to locate sources of organic nitrogen (grazing, wintering cattle, runoff

of organic fertilizer applications etc.). If knowledge of such sources

and their impacts is made known to faners within the basin, they

rnay voluntarily find ways to minimize contamination.

2. Particulate phosphorus is the primary f o n of phosphorus observed.

The source of particulate phosphonis is erosion of streambanks,

streambeds and runoff frorn eroded areas, Efforts to locate erosion

prone areas and reduce erosion would improve water quality.

3. Levels of total dissolved solids in the irrigation tailwater were above

the irrigation guideline (by about 9.5 times) in the early part of the

1997 irrigation season. As water in the irrigation canals is meant for

irrigation the exceeding of the guideline is of concern. Further work

to locate and reduce total dissolved solids in the irrigation water is

needed.

4. There is fecal coliform contamination upstream of the irrigation

tailwater outlet. As the irrigation water frequently exceeded the

irrigation guideline, potential sources should be located and an effort

made to bring irrigation water quality within irrigation guidelines.

Perhaps with coliform and phosphorus in mind, structures should be

maintained so as to elirninate surface runoff from entering the canals.

5. Substantial grazing along the creek takes place with cattle having

access to the creek. It is expected that this grazing causes

compaction of the soi1 and a reduction of plant cover, especially

riparian vegetation. Consequently. erosion highly impacts water

qual'ty in the creek. The runoff carries animal wastes into the creek.

This study only suggests that such grazing rnay be impacting creek

water quality. Additional work focussing on this topic may recomrnend

certain measures be taken so that livestock agriculture may be carried

on in the basin while maintaining good creek water quality.

6. Ta add to the above, it would be beneficial to protect and encourage

riparian vegetation. Adequate riparian vegetation could act as a

buffer filter strip reducing the amount of contaminants entering the

creek.

7. There are cattie wintering sites located adjacent to the creek within

the basin. It is expected that these sites impact creek water quality

during spring runoff. Further work on the location of such sites, their

impact on water quality and remedial actions would provide

information on how to operate these sites in a manner so as to

minirnize creek contamination.

8. A study on the Ducks Unlimited resewoirs and how to maintain thern

in order to improve water quality rnay also prove beneficial in

improving creek water quality.

REFERENCES Alberta Environmental Protection. 1996. Alberta ambient surface water quality interim guidelines. http:lhnmw.gov.ab .cal-env/comdiv/facts/watqualt. html. December 6, 1997.

Bachman JL. 1 984. Nitrate in the Columbia aquifer, Central Delmarva Peninsula. Towson: U.S. Geological Survey. US. Geol. Suw. Water-Resour. Invest. Rep. 84- 4322. Available from: U.S. Geological Survey, Towson, MD.

Barnetson RB. 1 985. 1984 Return fiow for irrigation districts h Alberta. Calgary: Environment Canada. 10 p. Available from: Water Resources Branch, Environment Canada, Calgary, AB.

Bolseng TA. 1991. Water quality in selected retum fiow channels. Lethbridge (AB): Alberta Agriculture, Food and Rural Development. 17 p. Available from: Land Evaluation and Reclamation Branch, Alberta Agriculture, Food and Rural Development, Leth bridge, AB.

Boone SG. 1976, July. Problems of irrigation return flow. Paper presented at the speciality conference - Environmental Aspects of Irrigation and Drainage, Ottawa, ON. 23 p.

Bow River Water Quality Council. 1994. Preserving our lifeline - a report on the state of the Bow river. Calgary (AB): Bow River Water Quality Council. 95 p.

Brezonik PL. 1972. Nitrogen: sources and transformations in natural waters. In: Allen HE, Kramer JR, editors. Nutrients in natural waters. Toronto: John Wiley & Sons. p 1-50.

Brichford SL, Joem BC, Whitford F. 1993. Agriculture's effect on environmental quality - key management issues. West Lafayette (IN): Purdue University Cooperative Extension Service. Water Quality Bulletin #17. 4 p. Available from: Indiana Deparbilent of Environmental Management, Indianapolis, IN.

Buckhouse JC, Gifford GF. 1976. Water quality implications of cattle grazing on a semi-arid watershed in southwestern Utah. J Range Manage 29:109-113.

Buckland, G. 1996. Memo - Project Status to Date. 1996-1 3-05. Addressed To Technical Committee Members and Steering Cornmittee Co-chairs. 12 p. Irrigation Branch, Alberta Agriculture, Food and Rural Development, Lethbridge, Alberta.

Burnett RW. 1 98 1. An evaluation of a shallow groundwater flow regime near Taber, Alberta [MSc Thesis]. Vancouver (BC): University of British Columbia. 275 p.

[CCREM]. Canadian Council of Resources and Environment Ministers. 1987. Canadian Water Quality Guidelines, Ottawa: Environment Canada. 6-45-21 0.

Chichester W, Van Keuren RW, McGuinness JC. 1 979. Hydrology and chernical quality of flow from small pastured watersheds: II. Chernical Quality. J Environ Qual 8:l6%l7l.

Clemm D. 1977. Suwival of bovine enteric bacteria in forest strearns and animal wastes [MSc Thesis]. Ellensburg (WA): Central Washington Univ. p 20.

Cross Pt Cooke S. 1996. A primer on water quality: agricultural impacts and pollutant pathways. Lethbridge: Alberta Agriculture, Food and Rural Development. 27 p. Available from: Conservation and Development Branch, Alberta Agriculture, Food and Rural Development, Lethbridge, AB.

Doran JW, Linn DM. 1979. Bacteriological quality of wnoff water from pastureland. App Environ Microbiol 37:985-998.

Edwards WM, Owens LB. 1991. Large storm effects on total soi1 erosion. J Soil Water Cons 46:75-77.

Environment Canada. 1997. The Canadian environmental quality guidelines. http:lEwww.doe.calcwqg/english. Decem ber 6, 1 997.

Faust SD, Aly OM. 1981. Çhernistry of natural waters. Ann Arbor: Ann Arbor Science Publications Inc. 400 p.

Gary HL, Johnson SR, Ponce SL. 1983. Cattle grazing impact on surface water quality in a Colorado front range stream. J Soil Water Cons 38: 124-1 28.

Greenberg A€, Clesceri LS, Eaton AD. 1992. Standard methods for examination of water and wastewater. 18th ed. Washington, DC: American Public Health Association.

Greenberg AE, Clesceri LS, Eaton AD. 1995. Standard methods for examination of water and wastewater. 19th ed. Washington, DC: American Public Health Association.

Greenlee GM, Peten TM, Lund PD. 1993. Surface water quality monitoring of irrigation retum flow streams in southern Alberta - 1992. Lethbridge (AB): Alberta Agriculture, Food and Rural Development. 42 p. Availabie from: Land Evaluation and Reclamation Branch, Alberta Agriculture, Food and Rural Developrnent, Lethbridge, AB.

Greenlee GM, Lund PD. 1995. Impacts of irrigation retum flows h m the Battersea Drainage basin on surface water quality (Year One - 1994). Lethbridge (AB): Alberta Agriculture, Food and Rural Development. 20 p. Available from: Irrigation Branch, Alberta Ag riculture, Food and Rural Development, Leth bridge, AB.

Hamilton HR, Bodie G, Schonekess OH. 1982. Current impact of irrigation retum Row on salinity levels in the Bow and Oldman rivers. In: Wastes and Prairie Water Quality. Water Studies lnstitute Symposium No.8, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan.

Health and Welfare Canada. 1980. Nitrite. In: Guidelines for Canadian drinking water quality 1978. Supporthg Documentation. Ottawa, ON: Supply and Services Canada. p 41 5-455.

Health Canada. 1996. Guidelines for Canadian drinking water quality. 6th ed. Prepared by the Federal-Provincial Su b-cornmittee on Drin king Water of the Federal-Provincial Cornmittee on Environmental and Occupational Health. Ottawa. 59 p.

Hodgkin EP, Hamilton BH. 1993. Fertilizer and eutrophication in southwestern Australia: setting the scene. Fert Res 36:95-103.

Howell JM, Coyne MS, Cornelius P. 1995. Water quality: fecal bacteria in agricultural waters of the Bluegrass region of Kentucky. J Environ Qual24:411419.

Kirchmann H. 1994. Animal and municipal organic wastes and water quality. In: Lal R, Stewart BA. editors. Soil processes and water auality. Boca Raton: Lewis Publishers. p 163-232.

Legg JO, Meisinger JJ. 1982. Soil nitrogen budgets. In: Nitrogen in agricultural soils. Stevenson FJ. ad. Agronorny Monograph no. 22, ASA, CSSA, SSSA, Madison, WI. p 503.

Madawaska Consulting. 1995. Surface water quality data projed. Strathmore (AB): County of Wheatland. 1 80 p. Available from: County of Wheatland, Strathmore, AB.

Madawaska Consulting. 1996. Western Irrigation District Water quality sampling program 1 996. Strathmore (AB): Western Irrigation District. 57 p. Available from: Western Irrigation District, Strathmore, AB.

Madawaska Consulting. 1997. Review of Irrigation District water quality. Lethbridge (AB): Alberta Agriculture, Food and Rural Development. 95 p. Available from: Irrigation Branch, Alberta Agriculture, Food and Rural Development, Lethbridge, AB.

McNeely RN, Neirnanis VP, Dwyer L. 1 979a. Nitrogen - Ammonia. In: Water quality sourcebook: A guide to water quality parameters. Ottawa: Water Quality Branch, lnland Water Directorate, Environment Canada. p 26-27.

McNeely RN, Neimanis VP, Dwyer L. 19794. Nitrogen - Nitrate. In: Water quality sourcebook: A guide to water quality parameters. Ottawa: Water Quality Branch, lnland Water Directorate, Environment Canada. p 27-28.

McNeely RN, Neimanis VP, Dwyer L. 1979c. Nitrogen - Nitrite. In: Water quality sourcebook: A guide to water quality parameters. Ottawa: Water Quality Branch, lnland Water Directorate, Environment Canada. p 28.

McNeely RN, Neirnanis VP, Dwyer L. 19794. Nitrogen - Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen. In: Water Quality sourcebook: A guide to water quality parameten. Ottawa: Water Quality Branch, lnland Water Directorate, Environment Canada. p 28-29.

McNeely RN, Neimanis VP, Dwyer L. 19796. Total Dissolved Solids. In: Water quality sourcebook: A guide to water quality parameters. Ottawa: Water Quality Branch, lnland Water Directorate, Environment Canada. p 61-62.

Menzel RG, Rhoades ED, Olness AE, Smith SJ. 1978. Variability of annual nutrient and sediment discharges in runoff from Oklahoma cropland and rangeland. J Environ Qual7:401-406.

Muchovej RM, Rechcigl JE. 1995. Nitrogen fertilizers. In: Rechcigl JE. editor. Soi! amendments and env ronmental quali&. New York: Lewis Publishers. p 1-64.

[NAQUADAT] National Water Quality Data Bank. 1985. National water quality data bank. Ottawa: Environment Canada. Available from: Water Quaiity Branch, lnland Waters Directorate, Environment Canada.

Owens LB, Edwards WM, Van Keuren RW. 1996. Sediment losses from a pastured watershed before and after stream fencing. J Soil and Water Cons 51:90-94.

Paterson BA. 1991. Effects of irrigation and drainage on surface and groundwater quality. In: Proceedings of 28th Annual Alberta Soil Science Workshop, Edmonton, Alberta. p 37 -45.

Paterson BA, Lindwall CW. 1992. Agricultural impacts on water quality in Alberta. Paper presented at the national workshop "Agricultural Impacts on Water Quality: Canadian Perspectives" held in Ottawa, Ontario. 22 p.

Pommen LW. 1983. The effect on water quality of explosives use in surface mining. Vol.1 NRrogen Sources, Water QuaMy, and Prediction and Management of Impacts.

Victoria: British Columbia Ministry of Environment. Tech. Rep. 4. Available from: British Columbia Ministry of Environment, Victoria, BC.

Prince DS, Smith DW, Stanley SJ. q993. Evaluation of lagoon treatment in Alberta [MSc Thesis]. Edmonton: University of Alberta. 209 p. Available from: University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB.

Quissenbeny VL, Rice JS, Hegab A, Barth CL, 1980. Manurial nitrogen management in the southern coastal plain in livestock wastes: a renewable resource, Proceedings of the 4th International Symposium on Livestock Wastes, St. Joseph, Michigan. ASAE 1 980: 174-1 77.

Reid GK, Wood RD. 1976. Ecolo~v of inland waters and estuaries. New York: D. Van Nostrand Co. 485 p.

Ritter WF. 1988. Reducing impacts of non-point source pollution from agriculture: a review. J Environ Sci Health A23(7):647-667.

Robbins JWD. 1979. Impact of unconfined livestock activities on water quality. Trans. ASAE. 22:1317-1323.

Rodvang J. 1997. Groundwater return flow in the Western Irrigation District. Lethbridge (AB): Irrigation Branch, Alberta Agriculture, Food and Rural Development. 52 p. Available from: lmgation Branch, Alberta Agriculture, Food and Rural Developrnent, Lethbridge, AB.

Saffran KA. 1996. Temporal and spatial trends for coliforni bacteria in the Bow river, 1951 -1 994. Edmonton: Alberta Environmental Protection. p 1. Available from: Surface water Assessrnent Branch, Technical Services and Monitoring Division, Alberta Environmental Protection, Edmonton, AB.

Sharpley AN, Chapra SC, Wedepohl R, Sims JT, Daniel TC, Reddy KR. 1994. Managing agncultural phosphorus for protection of surface waters: issues and options. J Environ Qual23:437-451.

Sharpley AN, Halvonon AD. 1 994. The management of soi1 phosphorus availability and its impact on surface water quality. In: Lal R, Stewart BA, editon. Soi[ processes and water g w . Boca Raton: Lewis Publishers. p 7-90.

Smith SJ, Sharpley AN, Ahuja LR. 1993. Agricultural chernical discharge in surface water nrnoff. J Environ Qual 221474480.

Sosiak A. 1996. Bow river synoptic surveys 1994-1 995 - Preliminary evaluation of results. Calgary: Alberta Environmental Protection. p 103. Available from: Water Management Division. Water Sciences Branch, Al berta Environmental Protecüon .

Stephenson GR, Street LV. 1978. Bacteriological variations in streams from a southwest Idaho rangeland watenhed. J Environ Qual7:150-157.

Strategic and Regional Support Division, Alberta Environmental Protection. 1995. Bow River basin - draft study design. Strategic and Regional Support Division, Corporate Management Service, Alberta Environmental Protection. p 7. Available from: Alberta Environmental Protection.

Sutton AL. 1 990. Animal agriculture's effect on water qualrty, pastures and feedlots. Water Quality Bull. 7. West Lafayette: Purdue University Cooperative Extension Service. Water Quality Bulletin #7. 4 p. Available from: Indiana Department of Environmentai Management, Indianapolis, IN.

Switzer-Howse KD, Coote DR. 1984. Agricultural practices and environmental conservation. Ottawa: Agricultural Canada. Publication 177ZE. 27 p. Available from: Communications Branch, Agriculture Canada, Ottawa, ON.

Thelin CF, Gifford GF. 1983. Fecal colifom release patterns from fecal material of cattle. J Environ Qual 12:57-63.

Thornann RB, Mueller JA. 1987. Pnnciples of surface water a * .

-uality modeIlino and controI. Harper Row Publishers. p 390-392.

Tiedemann AR, Higgins DA, Quigley TM, Sanderson HR, Bohn CC. 1988. Bacterial water quality responses to four grazing strategies - corn parisons wit h Oregon standards. J Environ Qual 17:492-498.

Tiedemann AR, Higgins DA, Quigley TM, Sanderson HR, Marx DB. 1987. Responses to fecal coliforrn in streamwater to four grazing strategies. J Range Manage 40:322-329.

[USEPA] United States Environmental Protection Agency. 1 976. Nitrates, nitrites. In: Quality criteria for water. Washington: U.S. Environmental Protection. Reference nr EPA-440/9-761023. p l 07-1 10. Available from: Office of Water Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.

Van Donsel DJ, Geldreich EE, Clarke N. 1967. Seasonal variations in survival of indicator bacteria in soi1 and their contribution to stomiwater pollution. App Microbiol 15:1362-1370.

W-E-R AGRA Ltd. 1994. Review of water qualrty in the Western Irrigation District canal. Calgary: W-E-R AGRA Ltd. Reference nr idll368lR041394.1. 19 p. Available from: Western Irrigation District, Strathmore, AB.

APPENDIX A: Water Quality Guidelines

Ippp Guideline 1 Parameter

F reshwater 0.06 Aquatic (NO,) Life

Canadian Environmental Quality (Environment

Irrigation

Canada 1996)

Livestock 100.0 Watering (NO,+

NO,) 9

10.0

-

I

E 31

Alberta Ambient Surface 1 .O1 0.1 5* Water Quality (Alberta Environmental Protection 1997)

Note#?: Not to be increased by more than f O mglL over background

TSS m g l u

-

See note #1

below.

Fecal

Il OOmL 7

See note #2

below.

Note#2: WNi regard to ~oliiorrh Vie Alberta ~ m b k n t Surface ~ a t e r QuaMy Guidelines (Alberta Envimnmental Protection 1997) states,

In waters to be withdrawn for treatment and distribution as potable supply or used for outdoor recreation other than direct contact, at least 90% of the samples (not less than 5 sarnples in any consecutive 30 day period) should have a total coliform count of less than 5000 organisms per 100 mL and a fecal coliforni count of less than 1000 organisrns per 100 mL. . In waters used for direct contact recreation or vegetable crop imgation, the geometric mean of not less than 5 samptes taken over not more than a 30 day period should not wceed 1000 organisms per 100 mL total coliforni, nor 200 organisrns per 100 m l fixa! aiiforni nor 8xc8eâ these numbers in more than 20% of the sarnple examined dunng any month, nor exceed 2400 organisms per 100 mL total coliform on any day.

' Total inorganic and organic nitrogen

' Total inorganic and organic Phosphorus as PO,

99

APPENDIX 6: Quality Control

A) FOR 1996

I) All parameters except Fecal Coliforms

Results of 2 tailed T-test for paQ

2) Fecal Coliform

Insufficient duplicates of coliform samples for T-test analysis.

8) FOR 1997

1) Ail panmeten except Fecal Colifomis

Results of 2 tailed T-test for nairecl sarnpg 0.3371 0.425 1 0.650 1 0.296 1 0.61 8 1 0.909 1 0.61 0 1 0.856 1 0.509 1

2) F ecal Coliform

Results of 2 tailed T-test for paired sam~les 10.5671

C) FOR "BLANKS"

Non O values as reported by laboratory for double distilled water boffled at field lab.

As a means to compare maximum concentration values of blanks, average concentrations of parameters from al1 sampling sites are included below.

Percentage of Blank samples with non-zero concentrations

D) BLIND LABORATORY COMPARISON

2 tailed t-test for paired samples used in the cornparison.

Resultsoft-tests 1-1 1-1 Note: T-test computations did not include threshhold detection values (i.e. ~0.04).

APPENDIX C: 1996 Flow & Precipitation Data

APPENDIX D: 1997 Flow & Precipitation Data

Note: Dramatic weather changes are normal in spring for this part of Alberta. Such changes lead to erratic freeze thaw cycles which explains the flow observed.

+ Note: These values were used in the analysis as the datalogger at site #2 appears to have malfunctioned from 10i27198 onwards.

APPENDIX E: 1996 Water Quality Data

APPENDIX F: 1997 Water Quality Data

APPENDIX G: JULIAN DAY - DATE CONVERSION

APPENDIX H: Analysis Methods for TDS Components

As mentioned in section 3.3 a value for total dissolved solids in a water sample was detemined using the following equation:

TDS=Ca+Mg+Na+K+Cl+SO,+(0.6 *(HC0,+C03)) +(4.43 *NO,-N)

Table HA outlines the laboratory methods used to obtain values for the components used to determine total dissoived solids.

Table H l Laboratory analysis methods for TDS components

II Parameter 1 Analysis Method (Greenberg and Oaiers 1992) 11 II Ca 1 Atomic Absorption Spectrometric Method 11

II K 1 Flarne Photometric Method II

Mg Na

II CI 1 Automated Ferricyanide Method II

Atorn ic Absorption Spectrometric Met hod

Flame Emission Photometric Method

II soh 1 Turbidirnetric Method 11 HCO,+CO,

L

NO,-N

Titration Method for Alkalinity

Automated Hydrazine Reduction Method